The trends of obstetric anesthesia practice: In a tertiary care center in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

INTRODUCTION: Obstetric anesthesia provides several methods for the analgesia of labor pain. The neuraxial technique is considered the standard of care for parturient women. The epidural block is widely used in vaginal delivery while the spinal block is the preferred method for cesarean section (C-section). We aim to know the practice of obstetric anesthesia in our center. METHODS: A retrospective cross-sectional study was conducted at a tertiary center in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. The data of all delivery cases from 1/7/2019 to 30/9/2019 were reviewed. RESULTS: We identified a total of 2,140 cases during the 3 months, vaginal delivery was the most common with 72.4% (1550) while the C-section cases were 27.6% (590). Regarding the type of analgesia/anesthesia for vaginal deliveries, intramuscular analgesia was the commonest group with 34.8% (540), followed by the group of ladies who did not receive any analgesia/anesthesia with 31.9% (495), thirdly was epidural cases with 31.8% (493), and the fourth type was spinal 0.6% (10). Regarding C-section, the emergency cases were 65.4% (386). The types of anesthesia for all C-sections were as follows spinal 63.5% (375), GA 23.8% (141), and epidural 12% (74). Regarding anesthesia for elective cases, spinal was 85% (174), GA 14% (28), and epidural 1% (2). Regarding anesthesia for emergency cases, spinal was 52% (201), GA 29% (113), and epidural 19% (72). CONCLUSIONS: The use of epidural was low, and the spinal use was relatively on par if we compare with leading western countries. More focused studies and multicenter studies are needed in the country.

The spectrum of muscle pathologies: Three decades of experience from a reference laboratory in Saudi Arabia.

BACKGROUND: When investigating patients with a suspected neuromuscular disorder, a muscle biopsy is considered an instrumental tool to reach a definitive diagnosis. There is a paucity of publications that assess the diagnostic utilization and yield of muscle biopsies. We intend to present our experience in this regard over an extended period of more than three decades. METHODS: This is an observational retrospective cohort study in which we collected pathology reports for muscle biopsies diagnosed at our reference lab between 1986 and 2017. RESULTS: We identified a total of 461 cases of muscle biopsy performed, which fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Pediatric cases defined as ≤14 years of age constituted a significant proportion of cases (n = 275, 60%). Normal biopsies were reported in 27% of cases (n = 124), and in 4%, the biopsies were non-diagnostic. The most common pathologies reported were non-specific myopathy (n = 72, 16%), dystrophy (n = 71, 15%), and neurogenic disorders (n = 60, 13%). CONCLUSION: In conclusion, the muscle biopsy will continue to play a crucial role, as a gold standard or as a complementary investigation, in the diagnosis of certain neuromuscular disorders. Increasing the yield and accuracy of muscle pathology should be the main concern and priority to neuropathologists reporting muscle biopsies. In addition, utilizing next-generation sequencing and other molecular techniques have changed the location of muscle biopsy in the algorithm of the diagnosis of neuromuscular disorders. This paper is an urgent call to establish the Saudi Neuropathology Society and the muscle pathology and neuromuscular disorders registry.