مقایسه پیامدهای مادر و نوزاد حین زایمان واژینال و سزارین با بیهوشی عمومی و نخاعی- مطالعه گذشته‌نگر

نوع مقاله: اصیل پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 استادیار گروه بیهوشی، مرکز تحقیقات بیهوشی و مراقبت‌های ویژه، دانشکده پزشکی، دانشگاه علوم پزشکی شیراز، شیراز، ایران.

2 پزشک، مرکز تحقیقات بیهوشی و مراقبت‌های ویژه، دانشکده پزشکی، دانشگاه علوم پزشکی شیراز، شیراز، ایران.

3 کارشناس ارشد علوم تغذیه، مرکز تحقیقات بیهوشی و مراقبت‌های ویژه، دانشکده پزشکی، دانشگاه علوم پزشکی شیراز، شیراز، ایران.

4 استادیار گروه فارماکولوژی، مرکز تحقیقات بیهوشی و مراقبت‌های ویژه، دانشکده پزشکی، دانشگاه علوم پزشکی شیراز، شیراز، ایران.

10.22038/ijogi.2020.16284

چکیده

مقدمه: بر اساس گزارش سازمان جهانی بهداشت، اثرات دقیق سزارین بر سطح سلامت مادر و نوزاد نامشخص است. مطالعه حاضر با هدف مقایسه پیامد مادر و نوزاد پس از زایمان واژینال، سزارین با بیهوشی عمومی و بی‌حسی نخاعی انجام شد.
روش‌کار: در این مطالعه گذشته‌نگر، 122 پرونده پزشکی از زنانی که تحت عمل زایمان طبیعی و سزارین غیراورژانس در بیمارستان مادر و کودک غدیر وابسته به دانشگاه علوم پزشکی شیراز طی سال 95-1394 قرار گرفته بودند، در سه گروه 36 نفره (زایمان واژینال، سزارین با بیهوشی عمومی و بی حسی نخاعی) مورد بررسی قرار گرفتند. ضربان قلب، فشارخون مادر و همچنین نمره آپگار و گازهای خون بندناف بررسی شد. تجزیه و تحلیل داده‌ها با استفاده از نرم‌افزار آماری SPSS (نسخه 19) و آزمون آنالیز واریانس یک‌طرفه برای داده‌های پارامتری بین گروه‌ها و اندازه‌گیری مکرر برای ارزیابی تأثیر زمان در گروه‌ها استفاده شد. میزان p کمتر از 05/0 معنی‌دار در نظر گرفته شد.
یافته‌ها: نمره آپگار دقایق 1 و 5 بین گروه­ها اختلاف معنی‌داری نداشت (به‌ترتیب 39/0=p و 91/0=p). PH جنین در گروه سزارین با بی‌حسی نخاعی (05/0=p) و PO2 و HCo3 در گروه سزارین با بیهوشی عمومی بیشتر بود (04/0=p). فشارخون سیستولیک پس از زایمان در زنان تحت بیهوشی نخاعی و فشارخون دیاستولیک در زنان تحت بیهوشی عمومی تفاوت معنی‌داری با دو گروه دیگر داشتند (05/0>p).
نتیجه‌گیری: فشارخون سیستولیک پس از زایمان در زنان تحت بیهوشی نخاعی و فشارخون دیاستولیک در زنان تحت بیهوشی عمومی نسبت به سایر گروه­ها بالاتر بود. PH خون نوزاد در گروه سزارین با بی‌حسی نخاعی و فشار اکسیژن و بی‌کربنات در خون بندناف نوزادان گروه تحت عمل سزارین با بیهوشی عمومی، بیشتر بود، اما نمره آپگار و فشار دی‌اکسیدکربن بین گروه­ها تفاوتی نداشت.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Comparison of Maternal and Neonatal Outcomes between Vaginal Delivery and Cesarean Section under General or spinal anesthesia- retrospective study

نویسندگان [English]

  • Ali Karami 1
  • Sara Khademi 2
  • Zeinabsadat Fattahi Saravi 1
  • Reza Jouybar 1
  • Zahra Esmaeilinezhad 3
  • Elham Asadpour 4
1 Assistant professor, Department of Anesthesia, Anesthesiology and Critical Care Research Center, Faculty of Medicine, Shiraz University of Medical Science, Shiraz, Iran.
2 Physician, Anesthesiology and Critical Care Research Center, Faculty of Medicine, Shiraz University of Medical Science, Shiraz, Iran.
3 M.Sc. in Nutrition Sciences, Anesthesiology and Critical Care Research Center, Faculty of Medicine, Shiraz University of Medical Science, Shiraz, Iran.
4 Assistant professor of pharmacology, Anesthesiology and Critical Care Research Center, Faculty of Medicine, Shiraz University of Medical Science, Shiraz, Iran.
چکیده [English]

Introduction: World Health Organization (WHO) has reported that the exact impacts of cesarean section on maternal and neonatal health are uncertain. This study was performed with aim to compare maternal and neonatal outcomes after vaginal delivery, cesarean section with general anesthesia or spinal anesthesia.
Methods: In this retrospective study, 122 medical records of women who underwent vaginal delivery and non-emergency cesarean section at Ghadir Mother and Child Hospital affiliated to Shiraz University of Medical Sciences in 2015-2016 were divided into three groups of 36 subjects (vaginal delivery, cesarean section with general anesthesia and spinal anesthesia) were evaluated. Maternal heart rate and blood pressure, Apgar score, and fetal blood gas of umbilical cord were assessed. Data were analyzed by SPSS software (version 19) and One-way ANOVA test was used for parametric data between groups and repeated measure for evaluating the effect of time in the groups. P Results: Exact Apgar scores at 1 and 5 min showed no significant difference between the groups (P = 0.39 and P = 0.91, respectively). Fetal pH was higher in cesarean group with spinal anesthesia (P = 0.05) while PO2 and HCo3 were higher in cesarean group with general anesthesia (P = 0.04). Postpartum systolic blood pressure in women under spinal anesthesia and diastolic blood pressure in women under general anesthesia were significantly different with other two groups (P <0.05).
Conclusion: Postpartum systolic blood pressure was higher in women under spinal anesthesia and diastolic blood pressure was higher in women under general anesthesia than other groups. pH of the infant's blood was higher in the cesarean group with spinal anesthesia, and the oxygen and bicarbonate pressure in the umbilical cord blood of the infants was higher in the cesarean group with general anesthesia, but the Apgar score and carbon dioxide pressure did not differ between the groups.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Apgar
  • Cesarean section
  • General anesthesia
  • Spinal anesthesia
  • Vaginal delivery
  1. Masoumi SZ, Kazemi F, Oshvandi K, Jalali M, Esmaeili-Vardanjani A, Rafiei H. Effect of Training Preparation for Childbirth on Fear of Normal Vaginal Delivery and Choosing the Type of Delivery Among Pregnant Women in Hamadan, Iran: A Randomized Controlled Trial. J Family Reprod Health 2016; 10(3):115‐121.
  2. Zakerihamidi M, Latifnejad Roudsari R, Merghati Khoei E. Vaginal Delivery vs. Cesarean Section: A Focused Ethnographic Study of Women's Perceptions in The North of Iran. Int J Community Based Nurs Midwifery 2015; 3(1):39‐50.
  3. Fattahi Z, Asadpour E, Dehghanpishe L, Karami A, Fakherpour A. Comparing the effects of Acetaminophen, Meperidine, and their combination on postoperative pain management in elective cesarean section. Iran J Obstet Gynecol Infertil 2019; 22(3):1-7.
  4. Kanani S, Allahverdipour H, AsghariJafarabadi M. Modeling the intention to choose natural vaginal delivery: using reasoned action and social cognitive theories. Health Promot Perspect 2015; 5(1):24‐33.
  5. Saracoglu KT, Saracoglu A, Umuroglu T, Eti Z. Neuraxial block versus general anaesthesia for cesarean section: post-operative pain scores and analgesic requirements. J Pak Med Assoc 2012; 62(5):441‐444.
  6. Hawkins JL, Koonin LM, Palmer SK, Gibbs CP. Anesthesia-related deaths during obstetric delivery in the United States, 1979-1990. Anesthesiology 1997; 86(2):277‐284.
  7. Nafisi S, Darabi ME, Rajabi M, Afshar M. General anesthesia in cesarean sections: a prospective review of 465 cesarean sections performed under general anesthesia. Middle East J Anaesthesiol 2014; 22(4):377‐384.
  8. Devroe S, Van de Velde M, Rex S. General anesthesia for caesarean section. Current opinion in anaesthesiology 2015; 28(3):240-246.
  9. Aiken CE, Aiken AR, Cole JC, Brockelsby JC, Bamber JH. Maternal and fetal outcomes following unplanned conversion to general anesthetic at elective cesarean section. J Perinatol 2015; 35(9):695‐699
  10. Mynbaev O, Babenko TI, Ahmadi F, Raimondo I, Kosmas IP, Mishutina AA, et al. Uterine Morbidity: Cesarean Section Scar Complications. In: Tinelli A, Alonso Pacheco L, Haimovich S, editors. Hysteroscopy. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2018. p. 421-68.
  11. Bender T, Nagy G, Barna I, Tefner I, Kádas E, Géher P. The effect of physical therapy on beta-endorphin levels. Eur J Appl Physiol 2007; 100(4):371‐382.
  12. Kwon JY, Yoon WS, Lee GS, Kim SJ, Shin JC, Park IY. Umbilical arterial blood gas and perinatal outcome in the second twin according to the planned mode of delivery. Int J Med Sci 2011; 8(8):643‐648.
  13. Raafati SH, Borna H, Haj Ebrahim Tehrani F, Jalali Nodoshan MR, Mozafari MH, Eslami M. Neonatal apgar scores and umbilical blood gas changes in vaginal delivery and cesarean: a comparative study. Tehran Univ Med J 2006; 64(4):61-68.
  14. Abboud TK, Nagappala S, Murakawa K, et al. Comparison of the effects of general and regional anesthesia for cesarean section on neonatal neurologic and adaptive capacity scores. Anesth Analg 1985; 64(10):996‐1000.
  15. Waugh J, Johnson A, Farkas A. Analysis of cord blood gas at delivery: questionnaire study of practice in the United Kingdom. BMJ 2001; 323(7315):727.
  16. Vandenbussche FP, Oepkes D, Keirse MJ. The merit of routine cord blood pH measurement at birth. J Perinat Med 1999; 27(3):158‐165.
  17. Nickelsen CN. Fetal capillary blood pH (fetal blood sampling). 2002. acutecaretesting.org. Availabale at: https://acutecaretesting.org/en/articles/fetal-capillary-blood-ph-fetal-blood-sampling.
  18. Huch A, Huch R, Rooth G. Guidelines for blood sampling and measurement of pH and blood gas values in obstetrics: Based upon a workshop held in Zurich, Switzerland, March 19, 1993 by an ad hoc committee††. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology 1994; 54(3):165-175.
  19. Ong BY, Cohen MM, Palahniuk RJ. Anesthesia for cesarean section--effects on neonates. Anesth Analg 1989; 68(3):270‐275.
  20. O'Donnell CP, Kamlin CO, Davis PG, Carlin JB, Morley CJ. Interobserver variability of the 5-minute Apgar score. J Pediatr 2006; 149(4):486‐489.
  21. Ehrenstein V. Association of Apgar scores with death and neurologic disability. Clin Epidemiol 2009; 1:45‐53.
  22. Solangi SA, Siddiqui SM, Khaskheli MS, Siddiqui MA. Comparison of the effects of general vs spinal anesthesia on neonatal outcome. Anaesthesia, Pain & Intensive Care 2019; 16(1):18-23.
  23. Quispe Bautista MS. CARACTERÍSTICAS DEL RECIEN NACIDO DE MADRES EN EDAD EXTREMA DE LOS PUESTOS DE SALUD PIRCAPAHUANA Y COLLPAPAMPA, LIRCAY DURANTE LOS AÑOS 2016 AL 2018. 2019. Repositorio Institucional. Available at: http://repositorio.unh.edu.pe/handle/UNH/2650.
  24. Kolatat T, Somboonnanonda A, Lertakyamanee J, Chinachot T, Tritrakarn T, Muangkasem J. Effects of general and regional anesthesia on the neonate (a prospective, randomized trial). J Med Assoc Thai 1999; 82(1):40‐45.
  25. Kavak ZN, Başgül A, Ceyhan N. Short-term outcome of newborn infants: spinal versus general anesthesia for elective cesarean section. A prospective randomized study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2001; 100(1):50‐54.
  26. Ong BY, Cohen MM, Palahniuk RJ. Anesthesia for cesarean section--effects on neonates. Anesth Analg 1989; 68(3):270‐275.
  27. Eyowas FA, Negasi AK, Aynalem GE, Worku AG. Adverse birth outcome: a comparative analysis between cesarean section and vaginal delivery at Felegehiwot Referral Hospital, Northwest Ethiopia: a retrospective record review. Pediatric Health Med Ther 2016; 7:65-70.
  28. Polkowski M, Kuehnle E, Schippert C, Kundu S, Hillemanns P, Staboulidou I. Neonatal and Maternal Short-Term Outcome Parameters in Instrument-Assisted Vaginal Delivery Compared to Second Stage Cesarean Section in Labour: A Retrospective 11-Year Analysis. Gynecol Obstet Invest 2018; 83(1):90‐98.
  29. Roberts SW, Leveno KJ, Sidawi JE, Lucas MJ, Kelly MA. Fetal acidemia associated with regional anesthesia for elective cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 1995; 85(1):79‐83.
  30. Sendağ F, Terek C, Oztekin K, Sağol S, Asena U. Comparison of epidural and general anaesthesia for elective caesarean delivery according to the effects of apgar scores and acid-base status. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 1999; 39(4):464‐468.
  31. Yegin A, Ertuğ Z, Yilmaz M, Erman M. The effects of epidural anesthesia and general anesthesia on newborns at cesarean section. Turkish journal of medical sciences 2003; 33(5):311-314.
  32. Hodgson CA, Wauchob TD. A comparison of spinal and general anaesthesia for elective caesarean section: effect on neonatal condition at birth. Int J Obstet Anesth 1994; 3(1):25‐30.
  33. Saygı Aİ, Özdamar Ö, Gün İ, Emirkadı H, Müngen E, Akpak YK. Comparison of maternal and fetal outcomes among patients undergoing cesarean section under general and spinal anesthesia: a randomized clinical trial. Sao Paulo Med J 2015; 133(3):227‐234.