Measurement of the Outcome of Low Dose of 0.5% Bupivacaine Heavy in Spinal Anesthesia during Lower Segment Cesarean Section (LSCS)
Asian Journal of Medicine and Health,
Page 14-20
DOI:
10.9734/ajmah/2023/v21i1786
Abstract
Background: Spinal anesthesia for lower segment cesarean sections is not without its challenges for anesthesiologists, such as severe hypotension from too much bupivacaine or insufficient anesthetic from too little.
Objective: In this study our main goal is to measure the efficacy of low dose of 0.5% Bupivacaine in spinal anesthesia during lower segment cesarean section.
Methods: This investigation was conducted at a tertiary medical institution as a cross-sectional comparison study between January 2020 and January 2021, where one hundred pregnant ladies participated.
Patients who volunteered to take part in the trial were randomly split into two groups: Group A got an intrathecal injection of 3 mL of bupivacaine 0.5% (n=50), while Group B received an intrathecal injection of 2.5 mL of bupivacaine 0.5% (n=50). Tossing a coin was used as a randomizer. The patient's heart rate, blood pressure, and oxygen saturation were taken before receiving anesthesia. Each patient underwent a subarachnoid block (SAB) using a 25-gauge Quincke spinal needle using a midline route after being preloaded with 800 ml to 1000 ml of isotonic intravenous fluid. The entire process of injecting the hyperbaric bupivacaine took no more than twenty to thirty seconds.
The needle's bevel was aligned with the dura's fibers. All of the data was entered into SPSS-25 after being coded. Statisticians used both descriptive and inferential methods. Percentages, means, standard deviations, graphs, tables, figures, and inferential statistics were all part of the descriptive statistics.
Results: Most participants were between the ages of 26 and 33, and between 60% and 70% were multiparous over the course of the research.
In both groups, all patients were able to reach a suitable sensory level for surgical intervention, as shown below. However, ephedrine was advised for 89% of Group B patients to help stabilize their blood pressure, whereas only 19% of Group A patients needed ephedrine. There were no significant variations in fluid consumption (P > 0.05) between Groups A and C (894 126 mL vs. 720 212 mL). The newborn's Apgar score was 9 at 1 minutes and 10 at 5 minutes. Also, although 19% of people in group A reported feeling sick, 23% of people in group B did.
Conclusion: A lower segment cesarean section performed under an optimal dose of hyperbaric bupivacaine in the spinal anesthesia will produce excellent surgical conditions with little hypotension, in contrast to the low dose. Improved results require more research..
Keywords:
- Bupivacaine
- spinal anesthesia
- lower segment cesarean section (LSCS)
How to Cite
References
Shaaban MM, Ahmed WS, Khadr Z, El-Sayed HF. Rising cesarean section rates, a patient’s perspective: Experience from a high birth rate country. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology. 2014;41(4):436-439.
Chumpathong, S., Chinachoti, T., Visalyaputra, S. and Himmunngan, T., 2006. Incidence and risk factors of hypotension during spinal anesthesia for cesarean section at Siriraj Hospital. J Med Assoc Thai, 89(8), pp.1127-32.
Ohpasanon P, Chinachoti T, Sriswasdi P, Srichu S. Prospective study of hypotension after spinal anesthesia for cesarean section at Siriraj Hospital: Incidence and risk factors, Part 2. Medical journal of the Medical Association of Thailand. 2008;91(5):675.
Chun R, Baghirzada L, Tiruta C, Kirkpatrick AW. Measurement of intra-abdominal pressure in term pregnancy: a pilot study. International Journal of Obstetric Anesthesia. 2012;21(2):135-139.
Kundra P, Arunsekar G, Vasudevan A, Vinayagam S, Habeebullah S, Ramesh A. Effect of postural changes on inferior vena cava dimensions and its influence on haemodynamics during caesarean section under spinal anaesthesia. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. 2015;35(7):667-671.
Jeon YT, Hwang JW, Kim MH, Oh AY, Park KH, Park HP, Lee Y, Do SH. Positional blood pressure change and the risk of hypotension during spinal anesthesia for cesarean delivery: An observational study. Anesthesia & Analgesia. 2010;11(3):712-715.
Brockhurst NJ, Littleford JA, Halpern SH, Fisher DM. The neurologic and adaptive capacity score: A systematic review of its use in obstetric anesthesia research. The Journal of the American Society of Anesthesiologists. 2000;92(1):237-237.
Breen TW, Shapiro T, Glass B, Foster-Payne D, Oriol NE. Epidural anesthesia for labor in an ambulatory patient. Anesthesia and Analgesia. 1993;77(5):919-924.
Arzola C, Wieczorek PM. Efficacy of low-dose bupivacaine in spinal anaesthesia for Caesarean delivery: systematic review and meta-analysis. British Journal of Anaesthesia. 2011;107(3):308-318.
Xia F, Chang X, Zhang Y, Wang L, Xiao F. The effect of intrathecal dexmedetomidine on the dose requirement of hyperbaric bupivacaine in spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section: A prospective, double-blinded, randomized study. BMC Anesthesiology. 2018;18(1):1-7.
Turhanoglu, S., Kaya, S. and Erdogan, H., 2009. Is there an advantage in using low-dose intrathecal bupivacaine for cesarean section?. Journal of anesthesia, 23(3), pp.353-357.
Ginosar Y, Mirikatani E, Drover DR, Cohen SE, Riley ET. ED50and ED95of intrathecal hyperbaric bupivacaine coadministered with opioids for cesarean delivery. The Journal of the American Society of Anesthesiologists. 2004;100(3): 676-682.
Pedersen H, Santos AC, Steinberg ES, Schapiro HM, Harmon TW, Finster M. Incidence of visceral pain during cesarean section: the effect of varying doses of spinal bupivacaine. Anesthesia and Analgesia. 1989;69(1):46-49.
Kiran S, Singal NK. A comparative study of three different doses of 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine for spinal anaesthesia in elective caesarean section. International Journal of Obstetric Anesthesia. 2002;11(3):185-189.
Seljogi D, Wolff AP, Scheffer GJ, Van Geffen GJ, Bruhn J. Correlation of bupivacaine 0.5% dose and conversion from spinal anesthesia to general anesthesia in cesarean sections. Acta Anaesthesiologica Belgica. 2016;67(1): 36-42.
-
Abstract View: 63 times
PDF Download: 26 times
