ArticleInternational journal of women's health2021
Anesthesia for Cesarean Section: Retrospective Comparative Study.
Article in International journal of women's health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
General Anesthesia in Obstetric Patients for Cesarean Section, Maternal and Perinatal Outcomes
The Role of Therapeutic Ultrasound in Comparison With Electrical Dry Needling in Chronic Low Back Patients Post Cesarean Section
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of being lateral and sitting position for spinal anesthesia administration on maternal hemodynamic variability and the timing of hypotension among cesarean section patients in a resource-constrained area: a prospective observational cohort study.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2025Article
- Impact of general vs. neuraxial anesthesia on neonatal outcomes in non-elective cesarean sections.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
- Fear of anesthesia for cesarean section among pregnant women: a multicenter cross-sectional study.Perioperative medicine (London, England) · 2023Article
- The utero-tonic effects of low dose intravenous ketamine in cesarean section under spinal anesthesia; A randomized double-blind clinical trial.Caspian journal of internal medicine · 2023Article
- Evaluating patients' choice of general and spinal anesthesia for elective cesarean section and associated factors: a descriptive study.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2023Article
- Comparison of Post-Cesarean Pain Perception of General Versus Regional Anesthesia, a Single-Center Study.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2022Article
- Intraoperative Awareness in Patients Undergoing Cardiac Surgery in an Academic Center in the North of Iran.Anesthesiology and pain medicine · 2022Article
- Effect of anesthesia type on outcome measures in cesarean section in the presence of fetal macrosomia.Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCesarean section is a widely performed surgery.
objectiveTo compare anesthetic types regarding feto-maternal outcomes. MATERIALS AND
methodsRetrospective comparative study of 3599 cesarean sections (emergency and elective categories).
resultsMean APGAR score was statistically higher in the spinal than general anesthesia among the emergency category, P = 0.000 and 0.026, respectively, with no significant difference in the elective category. Estimated blood loss among the elective category was statistically significantly higher in the spinal than general anesthesia, P = 0.001. However, among the emergency category, it was significantly higher in the general than in spinal or epidural anesthesia, P = 0.000. Diclofenac sodium was used more after spinal than general anesthesia (P = 0.000), with no significant difference between epidural and general or between epidural and spinal anesthesia. Pethidine hydrochloride (HCL) was used more after general than after spinal anesthesia (P = 0.000). However, pethidine HCL use was not statistically significantly different between spinal and epidural anesthesia. In the elective category, paracetamol was requested more after spinal than epidural or general anesthesia, P = 0.000. No significant difference was seen between epidural and general anesthesia, P = 1.000. No statistically significant difference was found among the anesthetic types in both categories regarding tramadol HCL. Length of hospital stay, operative time and neonatal intensive care unit admission were not statistically different between anesthetic modes. In the emergency category, significantly higher percentage of patients were satisfied with and would recommend epidural anesthesia.
conclusionThere was no statistically significant difference among the three types of anesthesia regarding neonatal intensive care admission and length of hospital stay for emergency and elective categories. APGAR score was higher with spinal than with general anesthesia in the emergency category with no significant difference in the elective category. More diclofenac sodium and paracetamol and less opioids were used after regional than after general anesthesia. Satisfaction was higher with epidural anesthesia. LIMITATIONS: Retrospective and single centered.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.