LUMBAR SPINAL SUBARACHNOID BLOCK FOR CAESAREAN SECTION-A REVIEW OF 200 CASES
Abstract
Lumbar spinal subarachnoid block is simple, cheap and effective method of anaesthesia for infraumblicalsurgical procedures. In the present atmosphere of cost consciousness, spinal subarachnoid block is cost effective and
can be of advantage in the developing countries like ours, where the medical gases and expert anesthesiologists are
the rare commodities and deficiently available in the remote areas. Subarachnoid analgesia is entering into its
centennial anniversary; this year as the first successful block was performed by August Bier in 1899 in Germany. In
the present study the management of 200 cases of lower segment caesarian section under spinal subarachnoid block
is presented and the advantages discussed. There was a low incidence of vomiting (9%) and no chances of aspiration
even in the emergency nature of caesarian section. Cardiovascular side effects can be avoided by routine preloading
with I. V fluids and the incidence of headache and backache can be reduced by using a small gauge L/P needle as is
manifest in the present study. Spinal subarachnoid block has the advantage of the prolonged postoperative analgesia
which can be prolonged further by adding narcotic analgesic to the local drug. In the present study, authors used
hyperbaric local analgesic Cinchocaine (1:200 in 6 % glucose) which has a definite spread of analgesia. Spinal
analgesia has the additional advantage of very low chances of foetal depression and the 84.47c babies born after
caesarian section under spinal block has normal Apgar score. The authors would recommend lumber spinal
subarachnoid block with all its advantages both on the maternal side as well as on the foetal side.
References
Richard J. Personal Communication. 3rd SACA
congress (Islamabad). Dec. 1997.
Bier A. Versuche uber cocainisirung des ruchenmarkes.
Deutsche Zeitschrift fur Chirurgic, 1899; 51:361.
Translated and reprinted in "Classical file Survey of
Anesthesiology, 1962; 6:352.
Sakhi A. Spinal anaesthesia versus general anaesthesia
for elective caesarean section. Pakistan J.
Anesthesiology, 1994; XI: 6.
Lock & Greiss FC Jr. Anesthetic hazards in obstetrics.
Amer. J. Gynec. 1955:70: 861.
Apgar V, Holladay DA, James LS. et al. Comparison of
regional and general anesthesia in obstetrics. JAMA.
; 165:2155.
Philip KG. The relative effect of obstetric anesthesia
and analgesia upon the promptness of neonatal
respiration. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1959; 77: 133.
Benson RC, Shubeck F, Clarke WM, et al. Fetal
compromise during elective cesarean section. Am J
Obstet Gynecol, 1965; 91:645.
Abboud TK. Bilkian A, Nourished R, et al. Neonatal
effect of maternal hypotension during spinal anesthesia
as evaluated by a new test. Anesthesiology, 1983: 59:
A421.
Kamra GL. Spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section.
Ind. J. Anaesth, 1966; 14:198.
Kapoor YR, Gupta S. Kochhar SK, Kalra JS, Singh P.
Anaesthesia for caesarean section comparison between
general anaesthesia and spinal analgesia. Ind. J.
Anaesth, 1979; 27:316
Iqbal B. Indication and outcome of forceps deliveries in
a teaching hospital. JAMC. 1996; 8:15.
Dierker LJ Jr, Rosen MG, Thomson K, Debanne S &
Linn P. The mid forceps; Maternal and neonatal
outcome. Am. J Obstet Gynecol, 1985; 152: 176.
Neuman C, Foster AD & Rovenstine EA. The
importance of compensating vasoconstriction in
anaesthetized areas in the maintenance of blood
pressure during spinal anaesthesia. J. Clin. Investing,
; 24: 345.
Lang J, Jayasinghe C, Woodson L, Ahmad M, Mathru
M. Failure to prevent hypotension after spinal
anesthesia for elective cesarean section despite
crystalloid or colloid preload augmentation is probably
mediated by atrial natriuretic peptide. Anesthesiology.
;85: A904.
Buggy DJ. O'Brien D, Higgins P, Moran C.
O'Donovan F, McCarroll M. Crystalloid, colloid or no
preload for prevention of spinal anesthesia induced
hypotension in the elderly. Anesthesiology 1996: 85:
Al 10.
Qadri AM, Mankeswar HJ. Role of methergine in
preventing hypotension of spinal analgesia. Ind. J.
Anaesth, 1984; 32: 134.
Greene NM. Physiology of spinal anaesthesia. 1st.
edition. William Wilkins, Baltimore. 1958.
Liu SS, Ware PD, Allen HW, Neal JM & Pollock JE.
Dose response characteristics of spinal bupivacaine in
volunteers. Anesthesiology; 1996; 85: 729
Steven RA, Beardsley D, White JL, et al. Does spinal
anesthesia result in a more complete sympathetic block
than epidural anesthesia? Anesthesiology, 1995; 82:
Jayaram A, Carp H, Morro D. Chronic administration
of the hormones of pregnancy renders female rats more
sensitive to the hypotensive effect of intrathecal
bupivacaine. Anesthesiology, 1996; 85: A884.
Lederman RP, Me Cann DS, Work B Jr & Huber MJ.
Endogenous plasma epinephrine and norepinephrine in
last trimester pregnancy and labour. Am. J. Obstet
Gynecol. 1977; 129: 5.
Clark RB. Thompson DS. & Thompson CH. Prevention
of spinal hypotension associated with caesarean
section. Anesthesiology, 1976; 45: 670.
Ueyama H, Tanigami H. He YL, Mashimo T, Yoshiya
I. Crystalloid preloading has little expanding effect on
circulating blood volume in patients undergoing
cesarean section. Anesthesiology, 1996; 85: A901.
Hodges RJH & Tunstall ME. Recent advances in
anaesthesia and analgesia. 9th ed. Hewer CL, London
Churchill 1963.
Landa S, Bloing R. Stanee A. Variation in surgical
technique affect the incidence of nausea and
vomiting during cesarean section. Anesthesiology.
: 85: A877.
Matsushige DK, Horlocker TT. Me Gregor DG,
Schroeder DR. Neurologic complications of spinal
anesthesia. Anesthesiology. 1996; 85: A730.
Rajuriya SS, Matthews KA, Memdiratta OP, Gupta PP.
Comparison of Centbucridine and lignocaine for spinal
analgesia. Ind. J. Anaesth,1984;32:75.
Navaneetham J, Eapen MTP, Job T. Comparative
evaluation of marcaine, carbocaine and xylocaine in
spinal analgesia. Asian Arch. Anaesth. & Resus. 1977;
VII: 35.
Saxena RS, Khurana JS & Arora MV. Post spinal
headache. Ind. J. Anaesth. 1966; 14: 233.
Greene NM. Distribution of local anesthetic solution
within the subarachnoid space. Anesth. Analg, 1985;
: 715.
Richardson MG, Wissler RN. Density of lumbar
cerebrospinal fluid in pregnant and non-pregnant
humans. Anesthesiology, 1996; 85: 326.
Steinstra R, Van Poorten JF. The temperature of
bupivacaine 0.5% affects the sensory level of spinal
anesthesia. Anesth Analg, 1988; 67: 272.
Carter B, Wilson E. Pitkanen M & El Tayyab H. 2%
hypobaric lidocaine is inadequate compared to 5%
hyperbaric lidocaine spinal analgesia. Anesthesiology.
; 83: A955.
Palmer CM. Hays RL. Van Marren GA & Alves DM.
Hyperbaric v/s isobaric bupivacaine for subarachnoid
anesthesia for cesarean delivery. Does it make a
difference? Anesthesiology, 1995; 83: A953.
Krukowski JA, Hood DD. Eisenach JC, Mallak KA.
Intrathecal neostigmine for post cesarean section
analgesia: Dose response. Anesthesiology 1996: 85:
A903.
Downloads
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Journal of Ayub Medical College, Abbottabad is an OPEN ACCESS JOURNAL which means that all content is FREELY available without charge to all users whether registered with the journal or not. The work published by J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad is licensed and distributed under the creative commons License CC BY ND Attribution-NoDerivs. Material printed in this journal is OPEN to access, and are FREE for use in academic and research work with proper citation. J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad accepts only original material for publication with the understanding that except for abstracts, no part of the data has been published or will be submitted for publication elsewhere before appearing in J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad. The Editorial Board of J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad makes every effort to ensure the accuracy and authenticity of material printed in J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad. However, conclusions and statements expressed are views of the authors and do not reflect the opinion/policy of J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad or the Editorial Board.
USERS are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. This is in accordance with the BOAI definition of open access.
AUTHORS retain the rights of free downloading/unlimited e-print of full text and sharing/disseminating the article without any restriction, by any means including twitter, scholarly collaboration networks such as ResearchGate, Academia.eu, and social media sites such as Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Scholar and any other professional or academic networking site.
