3.8 Review

Post-caesarean analgesia: What is new?

期刊

INDIAN JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIA
卷 61, 期 3, 页码 200-214

出版社

WOLTERS KLUWER MEDKNOW PUBLICATIONS
DOI: 10.4103/ija.IJA_313_16

关键词

Anaesthesia; caesarean section; post-caesarean analgesia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Adequate post-operative analgesia after caesarean section (CS) is vital as it impacts the distinct surgical recovery requirements of the parturient. Although newer analgesic modalities and drugs for post-caesarean analgesia have been introduced over the recent years, review of the literature suggests suggests that we are far from achieving the goals of optimum post-operative analgesia. We conducted a systematic review of recent advances in modalities for post-caesarean analgesia. After systematic search and quality assessment of studies, we included a total of 51 randomised controlled trials that evaluated the role of opioids, transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block, wound infiltration/infusion, ketamine, gabapentin and ilioinguinal-iliohypogastric nerve block (II-IH NB) for post-caesarean analgesia. Administration of opioids still remains the gold standard for post-operative analgesia, but the associated troublesome side effects have led to the mandatory incorporation of non-opioid analgesics in post-CS analgesia regime. Among the non-opioid techniques, TAP block is the most investigated modality of the last decade. The analgesic efficacy of TAP block as a part of multimodal analgesia is established in post-CS cases where intrathecal morphine is not employed and in CS under general anaesthesia. Among non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, COX-I inhibitors and intravenous paracetamol are found to be useful in post-operative analgesic regimen. The perioperative use of ketamine is found useful only in CS done under spinal anaesthesia; no benefit is seen where general anaesthesia is employed. Wound infiltration with local anaesthetics, systemic gabapentin and II-IH NB need further trials to assess their efficacy.

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

3.8
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