Anesthesia for cesarean delivery: general or regional anesthesia—a systematic review

Abstract Background General anesthesia and regional anesthesia are the anesthetic techniques of choice for cesarean delivery. These anesthetic techniques have their effects on both the fetus and mother. The choice of anesthetic techniques for cesarean delivery depends on several factors including ph...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Mahadi Iddrisu, Zahid Hussain Khan
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: SpringerOpen 2021-01-01
Series:Ain Shams Journal of Anesthesiology
Subjects:
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1186/s42077-020-00121-7
id doaj-1fbd40ec4d1940628ab336bd6cd31a7d
record_format Article
spelling doaj-1fbd40ec4d1940628ab336bd6cd31a7d2021-01-10T12:54:23ZengSpringerOpenAin Shams Journal of Anesthesiology2090-925X2021-01-011311710.1186/s42077-020-00121-7Anesthesia for cesarean delivery: general or regional anesthesia—a systematic reviewMahadi Iddrisu0Zahid Hussain Khan1Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, Tehran University of Medical SciencesDepartment of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, Imam Khomeini Hospital Complex, Tehran University of Medical SciencesAbstract Background General anesthesia and regional anesthesia are the anesthetic techniques of choice for cesarean delivery. These anesthetic techniques have their effects on both the fetus and mother. The choice of anesthetic techniques for cesarean delivery depends on several factors including physiological presentation of the patient, experience level of the practitioner, availability of drugs, and equipment, among others. However, whichever technique is used is chosen because of its safety profile and benefit to both mother and fetus. Therefore, this study aimed to compare the effects of general anesthesia against regional anesthesia on fetal and maternal outcomes for cesarean delivery. Main body Search methods were conducted on PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Cochrane library to identify eligible studies using the keywords, MeSH terms, and filters. Two review authors independently assessed the included studies for quality, bias, and accuracy. A total of fourteen (14) studies (1924 women) contributed data for this review. Findings showed that the 1st and 5th minute Apgar scores were higher in regional anesthesia than in general anesthesia while the 1st minute Apgar scores < 7 were more in general anesthesia. On the other hand, fetal umbilical arterial blood pH was lower in regional anesthesia. Also, intraoperative hypotension was more in regional anesthesia while heart rate and estimated blood loss significantly higher in general anesthesia. Conclusion In conclusion, regional anesthesia emerges as a better option evidenced by its better fetal and maternal outcomes. However, both regional anesthesia and general anesthesia are still used for cesarean delivery.https://doi.org/10.1186/s42077-020-00121-7Regional anesthesiaGeneral anesthesiaCesarean deliverySpinal anesthesia
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Mahadi Iddrisu
Zahid Hussain Khan
spellingShingle Mahadi Iddrisu
Zahid Hussain Khan
Anesthesia for cesarean delivery: general or regional anesthesia—a systematic review
Ain Shams Journal of Anesthesiology
Regional anesthesia
General anesthesia
Cesarean delivery
Spinal anesthesia
author_facet Mahadi Iddrisu
Zahid Hussain Khan
author_sort Mahadi Iddrisu
title Anesthesia for cesarean delivery: general or regional anesthesia—a systematic review
title_short Anesthesia for cesarean delivery: general or regional anesthesia—a systematic review
title_full Anesthesia for cesarean delivery: general or regional anesthesia—a systematic review
title_fullStr Anesthesia for cesarean delivery: general or regional anesthesia—a systematic review
title_full_unstemmed Anesthesia for cesarean delivery: general or regional anesthesia—a systematic review
title_sort anesthesia for cesarean delivery: general or regional anesthesia—a systematic review
publisher SpringerOpen
series Ain Shams Journal of Anesthesiology
issn 2090-925X
publishDate 2021-01-01
description Abstract Background General anesthesia and regional anesthesia are the anesthetic techniques of choice for cesarean delivery. These anesthetic techniques have their effects on both the fetus and mother. The choice of anesthetic techniques for cesarean delivery depends on several factors including physiological presentation of the patient, experience level of the practitioner, availability of drugs, and equipment, among others. However, whichever technique is used is chosen because of its safety profile and benefit to both mother and fetus. Therefore, this study aimed to compare the effects of general anesthesia against regional anesthesia on fetal and maternal outcomes for cesarean delivery. Main body Search methods were conducted on PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Cochrane library to identify eligible studies using the keywords, MeSH terms, and filters. Two review authors independently assessed the included studies for quality, bias, and accuracy. A total of fourteen (14) studies (1924 women) contributed data for this review. Findings showed that the 1st and 5th minute Apgar scores were higher in regional anesthesia than in general anesthesia while the 1st minute Apgar scores < 7 were more in general anesthesia. On the other hand, fetal umbilical arterial blood pH was lower in regional anesthesia. Also, intraoperative hypotension was more in regional anesthesia while heart rate and estimated blood loss significantly higher in general anesthesia. Conclusion In conclusion, regional anesthesia emerges as a better option evidenced by its better fetal and maternal outcomes. However, both regional anesthesia and general anesthesia are still used for cesarean delivery.
topic Regional anesthesia
General anesthesia
Cesarean delivery
Spinal anesthesia
url https://doi.org/10.1186/s42077-020-00121-7
work_keys_str_mv AT mahadiiddrisu anesthesiaforcesareandeliverygeneralorregionalanesthesiaasystematicreview
AT zahidhussainkhan anesthesiaforcesareandeliverygeneralorregionalanesthesiaasystematicreview
_version_ 1724342065559502848