4.2 Article

Intrapartum Cesarean Section and Perinatal Outcomes after Epidural Analgesia or Remifentanil-PCA in Breech and Twin Deliveries

期刊

MEDICINA-LITHUANIA
卷 59, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/medicina59061026

关键词

labor analgesia; epidural analgesia; remifentanil patient-controlled analgesia; breech delivery; twin delivery; cesarean section; labor outcomes

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, the associations between the types of labor analgesia and the outcomes of singleton breech and twin vaginal births were examined. It was found that there were no significant differences in the outcomes between epidural analgesia and remifentanil patient-controlled analgesia.
Comparative data on the potential impact of various forms of labor analgesia on the mode of delivery and neonatal complications in vaginal deliveries of singleton breech and twin fetuses are lacking. The present study aimed to determine the associations between type of labor analgesia (epidural analgesia (EA) vs. remifentanil patient-controlled analgesia (PCA)) and intrapartum cesarean sections (CS), and maternal and neonatal adverse outcomes in breech and twin vaginal births. A retrospective analysis of planned vaginal breech and twin deliveries at the Department of Perinatology, University Medical Centre Ljubljana, was performed for the period 2013-2021, using data obtained from the Slovenian National Perinatal Information System. The pre-specified outcomes studied were the rates of CS in labor, postpartum hemorrhage, obstetric anal sphincter injury (OASI), an Apgar score of <7 at 5 min after birth, birth asphyxia, and neonatal intensive care admission. A total of 371 deliveries were analyzed, including 127 term breech and 244 twin births. There were no statistically significant nor clinically relevant differences between the EA and remifentanil-PCA groups in any of the outcomes studied. Our findings suggest that both EA and remifentanil-PCA are safe and comparable in terms of labor outcomes in singleton breech and twin deliveries.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据