Some interesting research on common and not-so-common obstetric anaesthesia topics: both new trends and continuing trends, as well as a cautionary medicolegal reminder.
Supraglottic airways for GA Caesarean?
Metodiev & Mushambi's editorial looks at the attitude shift among obstetric anaesthesiologists to more favourably consider the LMA or SGA for Caesarean section under GA.
They review the evidence for aspiration risk, particularly noting what we learned from NAP4 (2011) but contrast this with many studies showing safety of SGAs for GA CS (over 8,000 patients in total, with Halaseah 2010 investigating 3,000 alone!). Interesting, but before we get too excited keep in mind that the populations studied are likely very different from parturients you may typically look after.
"...there is insufficient evidence to recommend universal or selective replacement of tracheal tubes with SGA devices during general anaesthesia for Caesarean delivery. Aspiration remains the main concern." – Metodiev & Mushambi (2020)
Cautionary reminders of neuraxial injury
McCombe & Bogod reviewed 21 years of obstetric anaesthetic medicolegal claims, noting common themes around consent, types of nerve injury, and recognition and management failures.
Not only is neurological injury the second most common reason for obstetric anaesthetic claims (behind inadequately managed pain during Caesarean section), it carries the highest average claim cost.
The review is full of many useful observations, but Reynold's 2000 advice regarding interspace level choice for spinal access is by far the most important: always access the intrathecal space at the lowest possible level, and "...the L2/3 interspace should not be an option."
McCombe & Bogod spend some time exploring the variability of cord termination level, individual variability of the intercristal line, and the inaccuracy of anaesthetist interspace level estimation. Well worth reading the whole review.