ArticleRevista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992)2022
Effect of anesthesia type on outcome measures in cesarean section in the presence of fetal macrosomia.
Article in Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mode of Anesthesia During Cesarean Section and Neonatal Morbidity and Mortality: A Cohort Study.Local and regional anesthesia · 2026Article
- Relationship between labour analgesia modalities and types of anaesthetic techniques in categories 2 and 3 intrapartum caesarean deliveries.Biomolecules & biomedicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of this study was to compare the effects of general and spinal anesthesia on maternal and neonatal outcomes during cesarean section in pregnancies with macrosomia.
methodsThis retrospective cohort study included 1043 patients who delivered by cesarean section between May 2018 and December 2021 and had a baby born with a birth weight of 4000 g or greater. Maternal and neonatal outcomes were compared according to the type of anesthesia performed in the spinal anesthesia group (n=903; 86.6%) and general anesthesia group (n=140; 13.4%). The Apgar score was categorized into <7 and ≥7.
resultsNeonates with an Apgar score of <7 at the first minute (11.4 vs. 0.4%; p<0.001) and the fifth minute (2.9 vs. 0.3%; p=0.004) were significantly higher in the general anesthesia group. The preoperative and postoperative hematocrit difference was significantly lower in patients who received spinal anesthesia than those who received general anesthesia [2 (1.1-3.1) vs. 4.05 (2.8-5.35); p<0.001]. The number of patients transfused was higher in the general anesthesia group (9.3 vs. 2.7%; p<0.001). In the regression model, general anesthesia, birth weight, and emergency conditions were significant independent factors related to the preoperative and postoperative hematocrit decrease (p<0.001, p=0.005, and p=0.034, respectively).
conclusionsApgar scores of <7 at the first and fifth minutes are higher in macrosomic neonates who received general anesthesia than in neonates who received spinal anesthesia. Performing cesarean section under general anesthesia in mothers of macrosomic neonates results in a greater decrease in hematocrit value and a greater need for blood transfusion than under spinal anesthesia.
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.