0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Effects of different anesthesia methods on labor process and postpartum serum estrogen and progesterone levels in primiparas with painless labor

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Highlights

          • Spinal anesthesia combined with continuous epidural anesthesia has a better anesthesia effect in the painless labor of primiparas.

          • Spinal anesthesia combined with continuous epidural anesthesia can effectually ameliorate the labor process.

          • Spinal anesthesia combined with continuous epidural anesthesia attenuates the expression of serum estrogen and progesterone.

          • Spinal anesthesia combined with continuous epidural anesthesia can be widely employed in clinical practice.

          Abstract

          Objective

          To look into the effects of different anesthesia methods on the labor process and the expression of serum estrogen and progesterone in primiparas with painless labor.

          Methods

          60 primiparas receiving painless labor were selected as the research objects, and they were divided into either a Spinal & Continuous epidural anesthesia group (n = 30) or a continuous epidural anesthesia group (n = 30), anesthesia is administered using the corresponding anesthesia method. The authors compared serum estrogen and progesterone, inflammatory index expression, pain degree and neonatal health status in different periods.

          Results

          At T2 and T3, serum P, LH, FSH and E2 levels in the Spinal & Continuous epidural anesthesia group were signally lower than those in the Spinal & Continuous epidural anesthesia group (p < 0.05). Spinal & Continuous epidural anesthesia group harbored faster onset and longer duration of sensory block and motor block than the Continuous epidural anesthesia group (p < 0.05). SAS and SDS scores of the Spinal & Continuous epidural anesthesia group were clearly lower than those of the Continuous epidural anesthesia group (p < 0.05). VAS score and serum TNF-α, IL-6 levels of pregnant women in the Spinal & Continuous epidural anesthesia group were memorably lower than those in the Continuous epidural anesthesia group at T2 and T3 (p < 0.05). The total incidence of postoperative complications in the Spinal & Continuous epidural anesthesia group was distinctively lower than that in the Continuous epidural anesthesia group (p < 0.05).

          Conclusion

          Spinal anesthesia combined with continuous epidural anesthesia has a better anesthesia effect in the painless labor of primiparas, which can effectually ameliorate the labor process and the expression of serum estrogen and progesterone.

          Related collections

          Most cited references26

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          What matters to women during childbirth: A systematic qualitative review

          Introduction Design and provision of good quality maternity care should incorporate what matters to childbearing women. This qualitative systematic review was undertaken to inform WHO intrapartum guidelines. Methods Using a pre-determined search strategy, we searched Medline, CINAHL, PsycINFO, AMED, EMBASE, LILACS, AJOL, and reference lists of eligible studies published 1996-August 2016 (updated to January 2018), reporting qualitative data on womens’ childbirth beliefs, expectations, and values. Studies including specific interventions or health conditions were excluded. PRISMA guidelines were followed. Data collection and analysis Authors’ findings were extracted, logged on a study-specific data form, and synthesised using meta-ethnographic techniques. Confidence in the quality, coherence, relevance and adequacy of data underpinning the resulting themes was assessed using GRADE-CERQual. A line of argument synthesis was developed. Results 35 studies (19 countries) were included in the primary search, and 2 in the update. Confidence in most results was moderate to high. What mattered to most women was a positive experience that fulfilled or exceeded their prior personal and socio-cultural beliefs and expectations. This included giving birth to a healthy baby in a clinically and psychologically safe environment with practical and emotional support from birth companions, and competent, reassuring, kind clinical staff. Most wanted a physiological labour and birth, while acknowledging that birth can be unpredictable and frightening, and that they may need to ‘go with the flow’. If intervention was needed or wanted, women wanted to retain a sense of personal achievement and control through active decision-making. These values and expectations were mediated through womens’ embodied (physical and psychosocial) experience of pregnancy and birth; local familial and sociocultural norms; and encounters with local maternity services and staff. Conclusions Most healthy childbearing women want a positive birth experience. Safety and psychosocial wellbeing are equally valued. Maternity care should be designed to fulfil or exceed womens’ personal and socio-cultural beliefs and expectations.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Epidural versus non-epidural or no analgesia for pain management in labour

            Epidural analgesia is a central nerve block technique achieved by injection of a local anaesthetic close to the nerves that transmit pain, and is widely used as a form of pain relief in labour. However, there are concerns about unintended adverse effects on the mother and infant. This is an update of an existing Cochrane Review ( Epidural versus non‐epidural or no analgesia in labour ), last published in 2011. To assess the effectiveness and safety of all types of epidural analgesia, including combined‐spinal‐epidural (CSE) on the mother and the baby, when compared with non‐epidural or no pain relief during labour. We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth’s Trials Register ( ClinicalTrials.gov ), the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform ( ICTRP ) (30 April 2017), and reference lists of retrieved studies. Randomised controlled trials comparing all types of epidural with any form of pain relief not involving regional blockade, or no pain relief in labour. We have not included cluster‐randomised or quasi‐randomised trials in this update. Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risks of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. We assessed selected outcomes using the GRADE approach. Fifty‐two trials met the inclusion criteria and we have included data from 40 trials, involving over 11,000 women. Four trials included more than two arms. Thirty‐four trials compared epidural with opioids, seven compared epidural with no analgesia, one trial compared epidural with acu‐stimulation, one trial compared epidural with inhaled analgesia, and one trial compared epidural with continuous midwifery support and other analgesia. Risks of bias varied throughout the included studies; six out of 40 studies were at high or unclear risk of bias for every bias domain, while most studies were at high or unclear risk of detection bias. Quality of the evidence assessed using GRADE ranged from moderate to low quality. Pain intensity as measured using pain scores was lower in women with epidural analgesia when compared to women who received opioids (standardised mean difference ‐2.64, 95% confidence interval (CI) ‐4.56 to ‐0.73; 1133 women; studies = 5; I 2 = 98%; low‐quality evidence) and a higher proportion were satisfied with their pain relief, reporting it to be "excellent or very good" (average risk ratio (RR) 1.47, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.08; 1911 women; studies = 7; I 2 = 97%; low‐quality evidence). There was substantial statistical heterogeneity in both these outcomes. There was a substantial decrease in the need for additional pain relief in women receiving epidural analgesia compared with opioid analgesia (average RR 0.10, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.25; 5099 women; studies = 16; I 2 = 73%; Tau 2 = 1.89; Chi 2 = 52.07 (P < 0.00001)). More women in the epidural group experienced assisted vaginal birth (RR 1.44, 95% CI 1.29 to 1.60; 9948 women; studies = 30; low‐quality evidence). A post hoc subgroup analysis of trials conducted after 2005 showed that this effect is negated when trials before 2005 are excluded from this analysis (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.46). There was no difference between caesarean section rates (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.18; 10,350 women; studies = 33; moderate‐quality evidence), and maternal long‐term backache (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.12; 814 women; studies = 2; moderate‐quality evidence). There were also no clear differences between groups for the neonatal outcomes, admission to neonatal intensive care unit (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.12; 4488 babies; studies = 8; moderate‐quality evidence) and Apgar score less than seven at five minutes (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.02; 8752 babies; studies = 22; low‐quality evidence). We downgraded the evidence for study design limitations, inconsistency, imprecision in effect estimates, and possible publication bias. Side effects were reported in both epidural and opioid groups. Women with epidural experienced more hypotension, motor blockade, fever, and urinary retention. They also had longer first and second stages of labour, and were more likely to have oxytocin augmentation than the women in the opioid group. Women receiving epidurals had less risk of respiratory depression requiring oxygen, and were less likely to experience nausea and vomiting than women receiving opioids. Babies born to women in the epidural group were less likely to have received naloxone. There was no clear difference between groups for postnatal depression, headache, itching, shivering, or drowsiness. Maternal morbidity and long‐term neonatal outcomes were not reported. Epidural analgesia resulted in less reported pain when compared with placebo or no treatment, and with acu‐stimulation. Pain intensity was not reported in the trials that compared epidural with inhaled analgesia, or continuous support. Few trials reported on serious maternal side effects. Low‐quality evidence shows that epidural analgesia may be more effective in reducing pain during labour and increasing maternal satisfaction with pain relief than non‐epidural methods. Although overall there appears to be an increase in assisted vaginal birth when women have epidural analgesia, a post hoc subgroup analysis showed this effect is not seen in recent studies (after 2005), suggesting that modern approaches to epidural analgesia in labour do not affect this outcome. Epidural analgesia had no impact on the risk of caesarean section or long‐term backache, and did not appear to have an immediate effect on neonatal status as determined by Apgar scores or in admissions to neonatal intensive care. Further research may be helpful to evaluate rare but potentially severe adverse effects of epidural analgesia and non‐epidural analgesia on women in labour and long‐term neonatal outcomes. Epidurals for pain relief in labour What is the issue? We set out to assess the effectiveness of all kinds of epidural analgesia (including combined‐spinal‐epidural) on the mother and the baby, when compared with non‐epidural or no pain relief during labour. Why is this important? Pain relief is important for women in labour. Pharmacological methods of pain relief include breathing in of nitrous oxide, injection of opioids and local analgesia with an epidural for a central nerve block. Epidurals are widely used for pain relief in labour and involve an injection of a local anaesthetic into the lower region of the back close to the nerves that transmit pain. Epidural solutions are given by bolus injection (a large, rapid injection), continuous infusion or using a patient‐controlled pump. Lower concentrations of local anaesthetic when given together with an opiate allow women to maintain the ability to move around during labour and to actively participate in the birth. Combined‐spinal‐epidural involves a single injection of local anaesthetic or opiate into the cerebral spinal fluid for fast onset of pain relief, as well as insertion of the epidural catheter for continuing pain relief. Side effects such as itchiness, drowsiness, shivering and fever have been reported. Rare but potentially severe adverse effects of epidural analgesia can occur, such as severe long‐lasting headache after the injection, or nerve injury. What evidence did we find? We searched for evidence in April 2017 and identified 40 trials, involving over 11,000 women, that contributed information to this review. The trials varied in the quality of their methods. All but six studies compared epidural analgesia with injected opioid drugs. Epidurals may relieve labour pain more effectively than opioids, and more women may be more satisfied with epidural as pain relief. Overall, women using epidural analgesia may be more likely to require forceps or ventouse to assist with the birth when compared with opioid drugs. However we did not see this effect in studies conducted since 2005, where the use of lower concentrations of local anaesthetic and more modern epidural techniques such as patient‐controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) were more likely. Epidural in comparison to opioids probably makes little or no difference to caesarean section rates, women with long‐term backache, effects on the baby at birth or the number of babies who were admitted to neonatal intensive care. Women who used epidurals can have problems passing urine and can suffer fever. There are highly variable findings such as a longer labour, experiencing very low blood pressure, and being unable to move for a period of time after the birth (motor blockade), probably due to higher concentrations of local anaesthetic being used in the epidural or the use of epidural infusions rather than epidural doses of pain relief administered at intervals. However, women who received opioid drugs also showed some side effects such as a slowing of their breathing so that they needed to wear an oxygen mask, and more nausea and vomiting. More babies whose mothers received opioids were given a drug to counteract the effects of the opioids. There was no difference between women in the epidural or opioid groups for postnatal depression, headaches, itching, shivering, or drowsiness. Women with epidurals reported less pain compared to women with placebo or no treatment, or acu‐stimulation. Pain was not reported in the trials that compared epidural with inhaled analgesia, or continuous support. What does this mean? Epidurals may reduce pain during labour more effectively than any other form of pain relief, and may increase maternal satisfaction with pain relief. However, some women who have an epidural instead of opioid drugs may be more likely to have an assisted vaginal birth, but this finding probably reflects the higher concentrations of local anaesthetics used traditionally rather than the low concentrations of modern epidurals. Further research would be helpful, using more consistent measures of reducing the adverse outcomes with epidurals.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Damage-associated molecular patterns in trauma

              In 1994, the “danger model” argued that adaptive immune responses are driven rather by molecules released upon tissue damage than by the recognition of “strange” molecules. Thus, an alternative to the “self versus non-self recognition model” has been provided. The model, which suggests that the immune system discriminates dangerous from safe molecules, has established the basis for the future designation of damage-associated molecular patterns (DAMPs), a term that was coined by Walter G. Land, Seong, and Matzinger. The pathological importance of DAMPs is barely somewhere else evident as in the posttraumatic or post-surgical inflammation and regeneration. Since DAMPs have been identified to trigger specific immune responses and inflammation, which is not necessarily detrimental but also regenerative, it still remains difficult to describe their “friend or foe” role in the posttraumatic immunogenicity and healing process. DAMPs can be used as biomarkers to indicate and/or to monitor a disease or injury severity, but they also may serve as clinically applicable parameters for optimized indication of the timing for, i.e., secondary surgeries. While experimental studies allow the detection of these biomarkers on different levels including cellular, tissue, and circulatory milieu, this is not always easily transferable to the human situation. Thus, in this review, we focus on the recent literature dealing with the pathophysiological importance of DAMPs after traumatic injury. Since dysregulated inflammation in traumatized patients always implies disturbed resolution of inflammation, so-called model of suppressing/inhibiting inducible DAMPs (SAMPs) will be very briefly introduced. Thus, an update on this topic in the field of trauma will be provided.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Clinics (Sao Paulo)
                Clinics (Sao Paulo)
                Clinics
                Hospital das Clinicas da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de Sao Paulo
                1807-5932
                1980-5322
                13 July 2024
                Jan-Dec 2024
                13 July 2024
                : 79
                : 100442
                Affiliations
                [a ]Department of Anesthesiology, Cangzhou Hospital of Integrated TCM-WM·HEBEI, Cangzhou City, Heibei Province, China
                [b ]Department of Anesthesiology, Yangxin People's Hospital, Huangshi City, Hubei Province, China
                [c ]Department of Military Casualty Management, General Hospital of Western Theater of Chinese People's Liberation Army, Sichuan City, Chengdu Province, China
                [d ]Department of Gynecology, Cangzhou Hospital of Integrated Chinese and Western medicine, Cangzhou City, Heibei Province, China
                [e ]Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Yanshan People's Hospital, Cangzhou City, Hebei Province, China
                [f ]Department of Anesthesiology, DaLian Medical center For Women and Children, Dalian City, Liaoning Province, 116011, China
                Author notes
                [* ]Corresponding author. ZhuoYinzyin@ 123456outlook.com
                [1]

                Equal contributions to this study.

                Article
                S1807-5932(24)00119-4 100442
                10.1016/j.clinsp.2024.100442
                11301188
                38996725
                74de1ba8-982a-4409-83db-4aac8919bbef
                © 2024 Published by Elsevier España, S.L.U. on behalf of HCFMUSP.

                This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

                History
                : 7 April 2024
                : 8 May 2024
                : 16 June 2024
                Categories
                Original Articles

                Medicine
                anesthesia method,painless labor,primipara,labor process,serum estrogen and progesterone
                Medicine
                anesthesia method, painless labor, primipara, labor process, serum estrogen and progesterone

                Comments

                Comment on this article