Anaesthesia
-
Historical Article
Learning from the Law. A review of 21 years of litigation for pain during caesarean section.
The large majority of caesarean sections in the UK are now carried out under neuraxial anaesthesia. Although this technique is widely accepted as being the safest option in most circumstances, the use of regional anaesthesia increases the risk of patients experiencing intra-operative discomfort or pain. Pain during operative obstetric delivery is the commonest successful negligence claim relating to regional anaesthesia against obstetric anaesthetists in the UK. In the following article, using a database of over 360 cases spanning 21 years, we break down and examine the recurrent components of medicolegal claims concerning pain during caesarean section and consider how anaesthetists might avoid litigation.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study
A randomised clinical trial comparing the 'sniffing' and neutral position using channelled (KingVision® ) and non-channelled (C-MAC® ) videolaryngoscopes.
Head and neck position is one of the factors which can be associated with difficult videolaryngoscopy and tracheal intubation. This prospective randomised clinical trial compared 'sniffing' and neutral positions using a channelled (KingVision® ) and a non-channelled (C-MAC® D-blade) videolaryngoscope in 200 adult patients randomly allocated into four groups (KingVision 'sniffing', KingVision neutral, C-MAC 'sniffing' and C-MAC neutral). The primary outcome was the ease of tracheal intubation using the modified intubation difficulty scale (mIDS) score. ⋯ The percentage of glottic opening score was lower for C-MAC neutral group as compared with other three groups (p = 0.01). There was no significant difference in the ease of intubation between the 'sniffing' and the neutral position when using the KingVision and the C-MAC videolaryngoscopes. Therefore, either of the two positions could be used with these types of videolaryngoscopes, if deemed advantageous for the patient.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study
Randomised double-blind comparison of bolus phenylephrine or ephedrine for treatment of hypotension in women with pre-eclampsia undergoing caesarean section.
Treatment of post-spinal hypotension during caesarean section assumes special concern in pre-eclamptic patients due to a compromised fetoplacental circulation and increased risk of placental hypoperfusion. Phenylephrine and ephedrine are the most commonly used vasopressors, although the best choice is still not clear. We studied 80 pre-eclamptic women with a singleton pregnancy who underwent caesarean section with spinal anaesthesia, and who developed hypotension defined as a decrease in systolic arterial pressure ≥ 20% from baseline or absolute value < 100 mmHg. ⋯ The incidence of neonatal acidosis (umbilical artery pH < 7.20) was 9 (22.5%) in the phenylephrine group and 11 (27.5%) in the ephedrine group (p = 0.80). Other secondary outcome measures were comparable. In conclusion, phenylephrine 50 μg and ephedrine 4 mg, administered as intravenous boluses to treat post-spinal hypotension during caesarean section in pre-eclamptic patients, resulted in similar fetal acid-base values, were equally effective in treating hypotension and were associated with good maternal and neonatal outcome.
-
Review Meta Analysis
Topical application of corticosteroids to tracheal tubes to prevent postoperative sore throat in adults undergoing tracheal intubation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Postoperative sore throat negatively affects patient satisfaction and recovery. Numerous randomised trials have tested the efficacy of corticosteroids applied to tracheal tubes to prevent postoperative sore throat. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Wanfang Database, and the China Academic Journal Network Publishing Database from inception to 7 December 2017. ⋯ Trial sequential analyses suggested the presence of firm evidence that corticosteroids applied to tracheal tubes were superior both to non-analgesic controls and lidocaine, in preventing postoperative sore throat. Evidence for postoperative sore throat for both comparisons was assessed as high quality. Only two trials sought adverse events; none were recorded.