Morbidity and chronic pain following different techniques of caesarean section: A comparative study.

Research examining long-term outcomes after childbirth performed with different techniques of caesarean section have been limited and do not provide information on morbidity and neuropathic pain. The study compares two groups of patients submitted to the 'Traditional' method using Pfannenstiel incision and patients submitted to the 'Misgav Ladach' method ≥ 5 years after the operation. We find better long-term postoperative results in the patients that were treated with the Misgav Ladach method compared with the Traditional method. The results were statistically better regarding the intensity of pain, presence of neuropathic and chronic pain and the level of satisfaction about cosmetic appearance of the scar.

Do we need cephalic spread of spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section? A different approach to CSE-EVE for reducing hypotension.

Spinal anaesthesia is the most preferred anaesthetic technique for elective as well as for unplanned Caesarean sections. Spinal-induced hypotension remains the most important side effect with a reported incidence between 20% and 100%. It can cause -maternal discomfort (nausea and vomiting) and impaired utero-placental perfusion. The present study was designed to examine the influence of epidural volume effect on the spread and duration of low-dose hyperbaric levobupivacaine. The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of epidural restriction (injection of saline) on the distribution of anaesthesia as well as the incidence of hypotension during the spinal anaesthesia.After the approval by the ethics committee, 60 full-term parturient women (ASA I or II) with uncomplicated pregnancies were prospectively randomized into 2 groups: the SA group (single shot spinal anaesthesia) included 37 patients and the CSE-EVR group (combined spinal-epidural anaesthesia) included 39 patients in whom we induced the restriction of the spinal space by epidural volume compression. The blocks were performed at the L2/3 or L3/4 level in a sitting position, in the CSE-EVR group using the needle-through-needle technique. The initial dose for CSE-EVR was exactly half of the SA dose (0.5 mg per 10 cm height of hyperbaric levobupivacaine and 20 microg fentanyl). After spinal injection, an epidural catheter was located in the CSE-EVR and a volume of 20 mL saline solution injected. After injection, the women were turned supine with a left uterine displacement. Surgery was allowed when a sensory block at or above the T8 dermatome was established. We evaluated the height of the block by the pinprick method and the motor block by the Bromage scale, 10 min after spinal injection, during the operation time and at the end of surgery. Haemodynamic monitoring (NIBP, HR) was assessed every 2 min until the childbirth, then every 5 min during operative time. Anaesthetic efficacy was evaluated for breakthrough pain by visual analogue pain score (VAPS), Apgar score at birth, umbilical artery pH, and epinephrine consumption.The level of anaesthesia 10 min after the induction was significantly higher in the spinal group (SA) than in the CSE-EVR T5 (T4-T7) vs. T7 (T6-T8) group.The SA group experienced complete motor block during the time of anaesthesia, while the CSE-EVR group demonstrated significantly faster motor recovery. The incidence of hypotension and ephedrine supplementation was significantly lower in the CSE-EVR group (19 vs. 35 patients) than in the SA group (p<0.05).The neonatal outcome and umbilical artery pH were higher in the CSE-EVR group. Both groups were comparable in demographic data, VAS scores, preloading and infusion volume, atropine or ephedrine use, and adverse effects such as nausea or skin pruritus.We demonstrated a possible restriction of the spread of spinal anaesthesia by using epidural volume restriction with 20 mL saline as part of a combined spinal epidural technique. The study shows that CSE with EVR using only 50% of the levobupivacaine dose provided adequate anaesthesia for elective Caesarean delivery, as well as better maternal haemodynamic stability.

Comparative study of the ''Misgav Ladach'' and traditional Pfannenstiel surgical techniques for cesarean section.

AIM: The aim of this study was to evaluate the advantages of the Misgav Ladach surgical technique compared to traditional cesarean section. METHODS: A prospective randomized trial of 111 women undergoing cesarean section was carried out in the Pula General Hospital. Forty-nine operations were performed using the Pfannenstiel method of cesarean section, 55 by the Misgav Ladach method and 7 by lower midline laparotomy. RESULTS: It was proved that the cases where the Misgav Ladach method was implemented, compared to the Pfannenstiel method, showed a significantly shorter delivery/extraction and operative time (P=0.0009), the incision pain on the second postoperative day was significantly lower (0.021), we recorded a quicker stand up and walking time (P=0.013), significantly fewer analgesic injections and a shorter duration of analgesia were required (P=0.0009) and the bowel function was restored to normal sooner (P=0.001). CONCLUSION: The Misgav Ladach method of cesarean section has advantages over the Pfannenstiel method in so far as it is significantly quicker to perform, with diminished postoperative pain and less use of postoperative analgesics. The recovery of physiologic function is faster. No differences were found in intraoperative bleeding, maternal morbidity, scar appearance, uterus postoperative involution and the assessment of the inflammation response to the operative technique.