Effect of Anaesthesia Methods for Regaining Daily Life Activities in Cesarean Patients

Gürsoy, Canan; Ok, Gülay; Aydın, Demet; Eser, Erhan; Erbüyün, Koray; Tekin, İdil; Baytur, Yeşim Bülbül; Uyar, Yıldız

doi:10.5152/tjar.2014.96630

Cited by 9 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Consistent with our findings, Gursoy et al showed that neuraxial anesthesia enables patients to return to normal daily activities earlier than general anesthesia. Moreover, the EQ-5D general health score was higher 24 h after cesarean delivery with regional anesthesia compared to general anesthesia [26].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Effect of Spinal versus General Anesthesia on Quality of Life in Women Undergoing Cesarean Delivery on Maternal Request

Ghaffari¹,

Dehghanpisheh²,

Tavakkoli³

et al. 2018

Cureus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionThe proportion of women electing for cesarean delivery has increased in both developed and developing countries. Cesarean delivery on maternal request (CDMR) refers to a primary cesarean delivery performed because the mother requests this method of delivery in the absence of standard medical/obstetrical indications.Several studies compared anesthesia modalities in cesarean section regarding clinical outcomes such as maternal mortality, post-operative pain and bleeding, but only a few compared health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of women undergoing general anesthesia versus spinal anesthesia. The aim of this study was to determine whether pregnant women who undergo general anesthesia (GA) for cesarean delivery compared with spinal anesthesia (SA) differ regarding their perceived HRQoL.MethodologyWe enrolled 160 pregnant women with American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class II, scheduled for CDMR with GA or SA. Anesthesia modality was based on patient’s preference. Participants assessed their state of health with the EuroQoL-5 Dimensions-3 Levels (EQ-5D-3L) self-administered questionnaire at four time points: six hours before cesarean delivery, 24 hours after cesarean delivery, one week and one month after cesarean delivery. Patients also rated their health on the EQ visual analog scale (EQ-VAS) from 100 mm “best imaginable health state” to 0 mm “worst imaginable health state”.ResultsMore women who underwent spinal anesthesia reported “no problem” with regards to “mobility’ (64% vs. 30%, p = 0.00), “usual activities” (90% vs. 38%, p = 0.00), and “pain/discomfort” (20% vs. 5%, p = 0.007). Repeated measurement analysis showed that the two groups started off with the same EQ-VAS score, however, both decreased over time with different slope resulting in different scores at 24 hours after CS. Then the scores increased in both groups over time and ended up being rather close at one month after CS.DiscussionUnless there is a contraindication, neuraxial anesthesia is the anesthetic technique of choice for cesarean delivery in all parturient in general. This concept is based on more mortality and morbidity that have been seen with general anesthesia in this particular population. Our study demonstrated significant advantages of spinal anesthesia compared to general anesthesia in cesarean section regarding postoperatively perceived HRQoL. We showed that more pregnant women who chose spinal anesthesia as their anesthesia modality reported “no problem” with respect to “mobility” and “Self-care” 24 hours after cesarean section. On the top of that, more women in this group had “no problem” in their “usual activities” at one week and one month after cesarean delivery time points. Moreover, EQ-5D general health score was higher 24 hours after cesarean delivery with regional anesthesia comparing to general anesthesia.ConclusionWe determined that compared to general anesthesia, spinal anesthesia is the technique of choice for cesarean section because not only it avoids a general anesthetic and the risk of failed...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Effect of Spinal versus General Anesthesia on Quality of Life in Women Undergoing Cesarean Delivery on Maternal Request

Ghaffari¹,

Dehghanpisheh²,

Tavakkoli³

et al. 2018

Cureus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, QoR scoring tools for this obstetric population are limited. Several scoring tools, including QoR-40 [ 4 ], QoR-15, [ 5 ] EuroQol-5D [ 6 ], and Short Form Health Survey [ 7 ], have been used to measure maternal recovery after CS, but they have not been validated in obstetric settings. In addition, these scoring tools do not include items such as neonatal care, which is necessary for discharge.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Validation and Clinical Utility of the Korean Version of the Obstetric Quality-of-Recovery Score (ObsQoR-11) Following Elective Cesarean Section: A Prospective Observational Cohort Study

Kang

Lee

et al. 2022

Diagnostics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Obstetric Quality of Recovery (ObsQoR-11) score is a new scoring tool that assesses maternal recovery after cesarean section (CS). We aimed to validate the translated Korean version of ObsQoR-11 (ObsQoR-11K) after elective CS. We validated ObsQoR-11K between March 2021 to August 2021. Validity (convergent, discriminant, and construct), reliability (Cronbach’s α, inter-item, split-half, and test-retest correlation), responsiveness, and clinical feasibility (recruitment rate and time for ObsQoR-11K completion) of ObsQoR-11K were evaluated. One hundred and twenty women completed the ObsQoR-11K 24 h after CS, and 24 women repeated it 25 h after CS. We found good convergent validity between the ObsQoR-11K score and the global health numerical rating scale (NRS) (ρ = 0.73 (95% CI 0.64 to 0.81); p < 0.001). The ObsQoR-11K score discriminated well between good (NRS ≥ 70 mm, n = 68, 69.6 ± 13.7) and poor recovery (NRS < 70 mm, n = 52, 50.6 ± 12.6, p < 0.001). The ObsQoR-11K score showed acceptable internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = 0.78), split-half reliability (0.89), intra-class correlation > 0.4, and no floor or ceiling effect. Of the participants, 100% completed the ObsQoR-11K and median (IQR) time for ObsQoR-11K completion was 81 s (66–97.5 s). ObsQoR-11K is a valid and reliable scoring tool for assessing maternal recovery after elective CS in Korean women.

show abstract

“…Consistent with our findings, Gursoy et al (2014) showed that neuraxial anesthesia enables patients to return to normal daily activities earlier than general anesthesia. Because, the mobility, self-care, and activities scores were higher 24 hours and one week after cesarean delivery with spinal anesthesia compared to general anesthesia [25].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 80%

Untitled

2023

J. Med. Chem. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and Objective: Cesarean section (CS) is considered as a significant surgical intervention necessitating a high level of professional skill and a choice between general anesthesia (GA) and spinal anesthesia (SA). Anesthesia type can significantly influence postoperative recovery, patient satisfaction, and, ultimately, the quality of life. This article aims to compare the impacts of GA and SA on the quality of life among women who undergo elective C-sections. Methods: This study was carried comparatively on 200 Kurdish pregnant women who undergoing to have a cesarean section with a spinal anesthesia and general anesthesia preference to mothers or physician were included in a purposive sample was carried out in the operating theatre at Maternity Teaching Hospital from 25 th January, 2022 to 18 th December, 2022. The EuroQoL-5 Dimensions-3 Levels (EQ-5D-3L) selfadministered questionnaire was used by the participants to measure their health at four different time points; two hours prior to cesarean birth, 24 hours following the procedure, one week, and one month thereafter. Results: At 24 hours, spinal anesthesia resulted in significantly better outcomes for mobility (70% vs. 44% no problems), self-care (8% vs. 11% no issues), and pain (83% vs. 75% moderate pain) (p<0.05). After one week, the advantages of spinal anesthesia remained for self-care (78% vs. 44% no problems) and anxiety/depression (66% vs 47% not anxious) (p<0.05). After one month post-delivery, health outcomes were similar between anesthesia methods. Conclusions: The study found that spinal anesthesia offers better healthrelated quality of life (HRQoL) outcomes than general anesthesia for cesarean delivery. As a result, spinal anesthesia is commonly preferred to as the anesthesia technique for cesarean delivery in many countries.

show abstract

Effect of Anaesthesia Methods for Regaining Daily Life Activities in Cesarean Patients

Cited by 9 publications

References 17 publications

The Effect of Spinal versus General Anesthesia on Quality of Life in Women Undergoing Cesarean Delivery on Maternal Request

The Effect of Spinal versus General Anesthesia on Quality of Life in Women Undergoing Cesarean Delivery on Maternal Request

Validation and Clinical Utility of the Korean Version of the Obstetric Quality-of-Recovery Score (ObsQoR-11) Following Elective Cesarean Section: A Prospective Observational Cohort Study

Untitled

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About