↓ Skip to main content

Combined spinal-epidural versus epidural analgesia in labour

Overview of attention for article published in this source, July 2007
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source

Citations

dimensions_citation
126 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
180 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Combined spinal-epidural versus epidural analgesia in labour
Published by
John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, July 2007
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003401.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Simmons, Scott W, Cyna, Allan M, Dennis, Alicia T, Hughes, Damien

Abstract

Traditional epidural techniques have been associated with prolonged labour, use of oxytocin augmentation, and increased incidence of instrumental vaginal delivery. The combined spinal-epidural (CSE) technique has been introduced in an attempt to reduce these adverse effects. CSE is believed to improve maternal mobility during labour and provide more rapid onset of analgesia than epidural analgesia, which could contribute to increased maternal satisfaction. To assess the relative effects of CSE versus epidural analgesia during labour. We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (December 2006). All published randomised controlled trials involving a comparison of CSE with epidural analgesia initiated for women in the first stage of labour. Three review authors independently assessed the trials identified from the searches for inclusion and extracted the data. Nineteen trials (2658 women) met our inclusion criteria. Twenty-six outcomes in two sets of comparisons involving CSE versus traditional epidurals and CSE versus low-dose epidural techniques were analysed. Of the CSE versus traditional epidural analyses only three outcomes showed a difference. CSE was more favourable in relation to need for rescue analgesia and urinary retention, but associated with more pruritus. For CSE versus low-dose epidurals, four outcomes were statistically significant. CSE had a faster onset of effective analgesia from time of injection but was associated with more pruritus. CSE was also associated with a clinically non-significant lower umbilical arterial pH. No differences between CSE and epidural were seen for maternal satisfaction, mobilisation in labour, modes of birth, incidence of post dural puncture headache or blood patch and maternal hypotension. It was not possible to draw any conclusions with respect to maternal respiratory depression, maternal sedation and need for labour augmentation. There appears to be little basis for offering CSE over epidurals in labour with no difference in overall maternal satisfaction despite a slightly faster onset with CSE and less pruritus with epidurals. There is no difference in ability to mobilise, obstetric outcome or neonatal outcome. However, the significantly higher incidence of urinary retention and rescue interventions with traditional techniques would favour the use of low-dose epidurals. It is not possible to draw any meaningful conclusions regarding rare complications such as nerve injury and meningitis.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 180 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 3 2%
Turkey 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
Unknown 174 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 25 14%
Researcher 19 11%
Other 18 10%
Unspecified 17 9%
Student > Postgraduate 17 9%
Other 48 27%
Unknown 36 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 77 43%
Unspecified 17 9%
Psychology 14 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 4%
Other 17 9%
Unknown 37 21%