Background:The practice of labor analgesia is an essential part of standard obstetric care. There are many guidelines and programs, which have been setup in labor pain management, in the developed country. In India, the practice of labor analgesia is not very popular. The role of labor analgesia providers lies in educating the parturients about the need of labor analgesia and also to develop comprehensive programs and guidelines in providing it.Aim:The aim of our study was to assess knowledge and practice of labour analgesia among anaesthesiologists across India.Methods:Survey was carried out using SurveyMonkey, an online internet website. Questionnaires were sent by mail to 11,986 anesthesiologists. The questions were based on methods of labor analgesia practice, regional analgesia techniques, commonly used drugs, complications and myths surrounding labor analgesia.Statistical Analysis:Responses were compiled and data was analysed. Results were expressed as percentages.Results:There were 1351 responses to the survey. Labor analgesia was practiced mainly by anesthesiologists across India (71.34%, n = 945). Regional analgesia techniques were the most common techniques followed in providing labor analgesia (69.61%, n = 940) and among regional analgesia techniques, epidural analgesia (43.52%, n = 588) was the most common method. Bupivacaine was considered the drug of choice (64.10% n = 866) and Fentanyl was the standard adjuvant used (83.34% n = 1126). Majority of the respondents did not believe in myths surrounding labor analgesia.Conclusion:Epidural analgesia is the most common technique practiced, bupivacaine the commonly used local anaesthetic, fentanyl common adjuvant used in practice of labour analgesia by anaesthesiologists across India.

Background and Aims:Opioids have been favored as adjuvants to local anesthetics during spinal anesthesia. Nalbuphine, a μ-receptor antagonist and ĸ-receptor agonist, seems to be a suitable adjuvant to local anesthetics. The aim of this study was to compare postoperative analgesia and adverse effects of nalbuphine and fentanyl when used as an adjuvant to hyperbaric bupivacaine during spinal anesthesia.Materials and Methods:Sixty patients belonging to the American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status I and II were randomly allocated into two groups of thirty each. Patients in bupivacaine nalbuphine group (Group BN) received 0.8 mg (0.3 ml) of nalbuphine with 12.5 mg (2.5 ml) of 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine diluted to 3 ml and bupivacaine-fentanyl group (Group BF) received 25 μg (0.5 ml) of fentanyl with 12.5 mg (2.5 ml) of 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine. Patients were assessed for hemodynamic changes, sensory and motor block, early postoperative analgesia, and adverse effects.Results:Onset, duration of sensory and motor block, and duration of effective analgesia were comparable between both groups. Postoperative visual analog scale score was 4.8 ± 1.12 in Group BN, and in Group BF, it was 3.86 ± 1.04 which was statistically highly significant (P = 0.0007). The number of patients demanding rescue analgesia in early postoperative period was 18 (60.0%) in Group BN and 7 (23.33%) in Group BF which was statistically significant (P = 0.004).Conclusion:Fentanyl was more efficient than nalbuphine in providing early postoperative analgesia when used as an adjuvant to hyperbaric bupivacaine.

No abstract