ArticleLocal and regional anesthesia2026
Mode of Anesthesia During Cesarean Section and Neonatal Morbidity and Mortality: A Cohort Study.
Article in Local and regional anesthesia, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The influence of obstetric anesthesia on neonates is still under investigation. We aimed to investigate the influence of type of anesthesia; either general anesthesia (GA) or spinal anesthesia (SA); during elective or emergency cesarean section (CS) on neonatal outcomes. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted and all neonatal admissions to the neonatal intensive care unit for mothers who underwent elective or emergency CS as the mode of delivery during the period from 2017 to 2021 were enrolled in the study. The primary outcome of the study was to investigate the difference between SA and GA. The enrolled cohort was divided into two groups: GA and SA groups. Results: A total of 997 patients were included in the study cohort. Among these, 628 patients underwent CS under SA. On univariate analysis, it was revealed that SA was associated with better Apgar score (8.56 ± 0.04 vs 8.16 ± 0.05, P =0.0001), less incidence of respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) (35.5% vs 42.3%, P =0.02), intraventricular hemorrhage (IVH) (0.8% vs 13.6%, P =0.0001), and neonatal thrombocytopenia (12.4% vs 17.3%, P =0.021). Moreover, GA was linked to higher mortality rates (10.8% vs 4%, P =0.0001) and more birth depression (10.6% vs 4.3%, P =0.0001). On the other hand, GA was related to less incidence of transient tachypnea of the newborn (TTN) (6.2% vs 12.6%, P =0.001). On multivariate logistic regression analysis, mode of anesthesia was related to RDS, TTN, IVH, birth depression and neonatal death. Conclusion: GA use may be related to more adverse and worse neonatal outcomes. This is related to the utilization of GA more frequently in higher-grade emergencies and is associated with more adverse baseline predictors including lower gestational age, lower birth weight, and greater obstetric complications. SA could offer a localized effect for the anesthetic drugs. Further prospective trials are needed to justify the risk of both types of 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.