Comparison of combined spinal-epidural and low dose epidural for labour analgesia. Adverse effects of combined spinal-epidural versus traditional epidural analgesia during labor. Comparison of epidural lidocaine and fentanyl to intrathecal sufentanil for analgesia in early labour. Combined spinal-epidural analgesia and epidural analgesia in labor: effect of intrathecal fentanyl vs. epidural bupivacaine as a bolus. Effect of low-dose mobile versus traditional epidural techniques on mode of delivery: a randomised controlled trial. [Obstetric analgesia: peridural analgesia versus combined spinal and peridural analgesia]. Spinal analgesia during labor with low-dose bupivacaine, sufentanil, and epinephrine. A comparison with epidural analgesia. Prospective, randomized comparison of epidural and combined spinal epidural analgesia during labor. A randomised controlled trial of epidural compared with non-epidural analgesia in labour. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation does not augment combined spinal epidural labour analgesia. Upright versus recumbent position in the second stage of labour in women with combined spinal-epidural analgesia. Randomised controlled trial of labouring in water compared with standard of augmentation for management of dystocia in first stage of labour. A randomized study of combined spinal-epidural analgesia versus intravenous meperidine during labor: impact on cesarean delivery rate. A prospective randomised trial on the effect of position in the passive second stage of labour on birth outcome in nulliparous women using epidural analgesia. Perispinal analgesia for labour followed by patient-controlled infusion with bupivacaine and sufentanil: combined spinal-epidural vs. epidural analgesia alone. Regional analgesia in early active labour: combined spinal epidural vs. epidural. Combined spinal epidural anaesthesia for caesarean section: a randomised comparison of Oxford, lateral and sitting positions. Subarachnoid morphine and fentanyl for labor analgesia. Efficacy and adverse effects. Intrathecal morphine 0.2 mg versus epidural bupivacaine 0.125% or their combination: effects on parturients. Effect of maternal ambulation on labour with low-dose combined spinal-epidural analgesia. Epidural analgesia compared with combined spinal-epidural analgesia during labor in nulliparous women. Hypotension following combined spinal-epidural anaesthesia for Caesarean section. Left lateral position vs. tilted supine position.
To compare the combined spinal-epidural (CSE) technique with the epidural technique with regard to time to initiate and manage, motor block, onset of analgesia and satisfaction during labour.
                Upon requesting analgesia, 50 healthy term parturients were randomized in a prospective, double-blind fashion to receive either CSE analgesia or lumbar epidural analgesia in the labour floor of a university hospital at an academic medical centre. The epidural group (n = 24) received bupivacaine 0.0625%-fentanyl 0.0002% with 0.05 ml in 10 ml local anesthetic sodium bicarbonate 8.4% and epinephrine 1:200,000. The CSE group (n = 26) received intrathecal 25 microg fentanyl and 2.5 mg bupivacaine. Additional analgesia was provided upon maternal request.
                There were no differences (P>0.05) in time to perform either technique, motor blockade, or parturient satisfaction or in the number of times that the anesthesiologist was called to perform any intervention. Although the first sign of analgesia was not different between the two groups, the onset of complete analgesia was more rapid with the CSE technique (Visual Analogue Pain Score (VAPS) at five minutes < three: 26/26 vs. 17/24, P+/-0.001).
                Although epidural analgesia with a low concentration of local anesthetic and opioid mixture takes longer to produce complete analgesia, it is a satisfactory alternative to CSE. To compare two neuraxial block techniques during labor for maternal and fetal effects.
                Women in labor at term with cephalic singleton fetuses were randomized (nonblinded) to receive either labor epidural (EPI) or combined spinal-epidural (CSE) analgesia. Primary outcome was prolonged deceleration (PD) of fetal heart rate. Outcomes also included hypotension, mode of delivery, and efficacy of analgesia by visual analog pain scale (VAPS) before and after block placement.
                Randomization occurred in 127 patients: 63 received EPI, 64 received CSE. There was no difference in the rate of PD in the EPI group compared with the CSE group (3.2% vs 6.2% respectively; P=0.43, RR 2.0; 95% CI 0.4-9.3), rate of cesarean delivery, or mean epidural duration. VAPS ratings were significantly lower in the CSE group.
                There were no differences in the rate of PD or other adverse outcomes. Hypotension occurred more frequently with CSE during labor at term. The study supports both EPI and CSE during labor as safe and effective techniques for neuraxial analgesia. A randomized, double-blind study was undertaken comparing an epidural test dose of lidocaine followed by 100 microg fentanyl (E-LF, n = 19) to combined spinal epidural sufentanil 10 microg (CSE-S, n = 21) in low risk women in early labour. The primary outcome measured was the duration of analgesia; secondary outcomes included the quality of analgesia, incidence and severity of pruritus, lower limb motor blockade, and the ability to ambulate. A P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Baseline demographic characteristics, including parity, were similar between groups. CSE-S provided analgesia of longer duration than E-LF (126 +/- 61 min versus 83 +/- 37 min, P < 0.01). Visual analog scores (VAS) for pain were higher with E-LF throughout the study period (P < 0.05) although patients in both groups had clinically acceptable analgesia. The VAS for pruritus were higher in the CSE-S group (P < 0.05) but no patient requested treatment for pruritus. Mild motor weakness was more frequent in the E-LF group (5/19 versus 20/21, P < 0.05) and fewer patients in the E-LF group met criteria for ambulation (13/19 versus 20/21, P < 0.05). While both E-LF and CSE-S provide effective analgesia for women in early labour, the more rapid onset of analgesia, lower VAS pain scores, longer duration of action and lesser impact on ability to ambulate suggest advantages of CSE-S over E-LF. To compare the clinical effects of intrathecal fentanyl with conventional epidural bupivacaine bolus before the same continuous epidural infusion for labor analgesia.
                Fifty parturients in active labor were randomized to receive subarachnoid fentanyl 25 mcg as part of a combined spinal epidural analgesia (CSE) or bupivacaine 0.25% 10 ml incrementally into the epidural space in the epidural group. After that, 0.0625% bupivacaine with fentanyl 2 mcg/ml was infused via epidural catheter in all women at a rate of 12 ml/h. Verbal numeric pain scores (VNPS), onset time to pain relief times of additional analgesia and other side effects were recorded.
                Mean (SD) onset time to the first pain free contraction was not significantly different (7.8 +/- 4.3 min in the CSE group, 10.2 +/- 5.1 min in epidural group, p = 0.085). Most of the patients in the CSE group required additional epidural bolus dose (80% compared to 48% in the Epidural group, p = 0.038). There was no difference in motor blockage at time of delivery or mode of delivery. Significantly more women in the CSE group had pruritus (68% VS none in the epidural group, p < 0.001), all had mild degree and did not require any treatment. There was no difference in other side effects.
                Intrathecalfentanyl as part of CSE did not produce statistically a significant faster onset compared to epidural bupivacaine bolus. Most of the patients in the CSE group required epidural bolus after intrathecal fentanyl with a higher incidence of pruritus. Epidural analgesia is the most effective labour pain relief but is associated with increased rates of instrumental vaginal delivery and other effects, which might be related to the poor motor function associated with traditional epidural. New techniques that preserve motor function could reduce obstetric intervention. We did a randomised controlled trial to compare low-dose combined spinal epidural and low-dose infusion (mobile) techniques with traditional epidural technique.
                Between Feb 1, 1999, and April 30, 2000, we randomly assigned 1054 nulliparous women requesting epidural pain relief to traditional (n=353), low-dose combined spinal epidural (n=351), or low-dose infusion epidural (n=350). Primary outcome was mode of delivery, and secondary outcomes were progress of labour, efficacy of procedure, and effect on neonates. We obtained data during labour and interviewed women postnatally.
                The normal vaginal delivery rate was 35.1% in the traditional epidural group, 42.7% in the low-dose combined spinal group (odds ratio 1.38 [95% CI 1.01-1.89]; p=0.04); and 42.9% in the low-dose infusion group (1.39 [1.01-1.90]; p=0.04). These differences were accounted for by a reduction in instrumental vaginal delivery. Overall, 5 min APGAR scores of 7 or less were more frequent with low-dose technique. High-level resuscitation was more frequent in the low-dose infusion group.
                The use of low-dose epidural techniques for labour analgesia has benefits for delivery outcome. Continued routine use of traditional epidurals might not be justified. To compare the analgesic efficiency, side effects and obstetrical repercussions of epidural analgesia (EP) and combined spinal-epidural analgesia (CSE).
                Prospective, randomized, double or single-blind studies as required, approved by the ethical committee of the institution.
                The study included 80 parturients, in active labour with a singleton in vertex presentation and a cervical dilatation of 3 cm or less, randomly allocated to receive either EP (n = 40) or CSE (n = 40).
                In the EP group, sufentanil (20 micrograms) and 0.25% bupivacaine (6-8 mL) were injected into the epidural space. In those of the CSE group, sufentanil (10 micrograms) was first injected into the subarachnoid space, followed by an epidural injection of the same agents at the same quantities as for the EP group. Additional analgesia was obtained in both groups by top-ups of 6-8 mL of 0.25% bupivacaine at the request of the patients. Analgesia, course of labour, obstetrical outcome, and neonatal status were assessed. Statistical analysis was performed using Anova, chi 2 analysis, Yates' correction or Fisher's exact test, with a P < 0.05 considered as significant.
                Both groups had similar demographic and obstetric data. The onset of analgesia was more rapid in CSE group (8 +/- 11 min vs. 12 +/- 7 min, P < 0.05), however the duration was similar. Technical incidents were more frequent in the CSE group (30% vs. 7%, P < 0.05). The technique of analgesia did not influence the bupivacaine amounts required for its maintenance. The incidence of adverse effects were comparable with the exception of vertigo, which was more frequent in the EP group (57% vs. 28%, P < 0.05). The first stage of labour was increased by 30% in the CSE group (281 +/- 130 min vs. 216 +/- 97 min, P < 0.05), without significant prolongation of labour length. Durations of second stage and expulsion were similar in both groups, despite the administration of a lower dose of bupivacaine in the CSE group (33 +/- 17 mg vs. 46 +/- 12 mg, P < 0.05). The rates of instrumental deliveries and Caesarien sections were comparable. The Apgar scores were satisfactory at 5 min.
                In the early phase of labour, the CSE technique using intrathecal sufentanil has no significant benefit when compared to the EP technique using bupivacaine and sufentanil. In the CSE group, technical incidents were more frequent and the length of the first stage of labour was increased. The purpose of this investigation was to evaluate the effectiveness and side effects of combined spinal-epidural (CSE) injection of a bupiv-acaine-sufentanil-epinephrine mixture during labor as compared with epidural analgesia alone.
                In a randomized trial, 63 parturients presenting for vaginal delivery received either epidural analgesia (10 mL) with 12.5 mg bupivacaine plus 10 micrograms sufentanil and 12.5 micrograms epinephrine or CSE analgesia with a single subarachnoid injection of 1 mg bupivacaine plus 5 micrograms sufentanil and 25 micrograms epinephrine (total volume, 2.5 mL). For this purpose a 29-gauge BD-Quincke spinal needle was used. All subsequent top-ups consisted of 10 mL of the mixture, as used for the patients who received epidural analgesia only.
                Thirteen patients delivered without requesting a second injection. The time required to obtain satisfactory analgesia (visual analog score < or = 2.5 and/or > 50% improvement) was significantly shorter for those who received the subarachnoid mixture than for the epidural analgesia group (4.0 +/- 0.4 vs 10.4 +/- 0.5 minutes, respectively, P < .001). The duration of analgesia was longer for the CSE group (137.4 +/- 11.5 vs 106.4 +/- 11.8 minutes, P < .05), with more patients being pain-free for longer than 150 minutes (40 vs 8%, P < .05). Less bupivacaine was consumed in the group receiving the subarachnoid mixture (21.6 +/- 2.0 vs 30.7 +/- 2.1 mg, P < .01). Pruritus was more common following subarachnoid than following epidural injection of sufentanil (53.1 vs 25.8%, P < .05). Other side effects related to the injected drugs, such as motor impairment, hypotension, or nausea or vomiting, were not observed. Although all blocks were uneventful, moderate headache compatible with postdural puncture headache occurred in two patients of the CSE group, which necessitated a blood patch after 5 days.
                The CSE mixture induced long-lasting analgesia, with fast onset and without motor block or hypotension. Pruritus and headache were the major drawbacks of this technique. The analgesic efficacy and incidence of maternal, fetal and neonatal side-effects of combined spinal epidural (CSE) and epidural (EPI) analgesia, using a mixture of bupivacaine 0.125%, epinephrine (1.25 micrograms.ml-1) and sufentanil (0.75 microgram.ml-1) for the relief of labor pain, were randomly and prospectively compared in 110 parturients. A 29 gauge Whitacre tip spinal needle was used to perforate the dura in CSE patients. Compared to EPI, CSE resulted in rapid (326 +/- 22 vs 766 +/- 79 sec, p < 0.05), excellent analgesia, using less bupivacaine (23.5 +/- 2.3 vs 33.9 +/- 2.9 mg, p < 0.05) and sufentanil (12.5 +/- 1.0 vs 16.5 +/- .7 micrograms, p < 0.05). A tendency to improved patient satisfaction in the CSE group was observed. The incidence of maternal or neonatal side effects was similar in both groups. No PDPH was observed. We conclude that CSE analgesia results in excellent pain relief during labor with immediate gratification as compared to epidural analgesia. To investigate possible short and long term side effects of epidural analgesia, compared with non-epidural analgesia for pain relief in labour.
                Randomised controlled study, with long term follow up by questionnaire. Analysis by intention-to-treat.
                Busy maternity unit within a district general hospital in England.
                Three hundred and sixty nine primigravid women in labour were included (randomised allocation: epidural n = 184, non-epidural n = 185).
                Backache at three and twelve months after delivery, instrumental delivery rates and maternal opinion of pain relief in labour.
                No significant differences were found in the reported incidence of backache between the groups at three months: middle backache [22% vs 20%, chi2 = 0.057, P = 0.81; odds ratio (95% CI) 1.4(0.9-2.3)]; low backache [35% vs 34%, chi2 = 0.009, P = 0.92; odds ratio (95% CI) 1.0(0.6-1.6)]. Nor were there significant differences at 12 months: [middle backache 16% vs 16%, chi2 = 0.013, P = 0.91; odds ratio (95% CI) 1.0(0.5-1.8)]; or low backache [35% vs 27%, chi2 = 1.91, P = 0.17; odds ratio (95% CI) 1.4(0.9-2.3)]. The incidence of instrumental delivery was somewhat higher in the epidural group [30% vs 19%, odds ratio (95% CI) 1.77(1.09-2.86)]. Maternal satisfaction was not significantly different between the groups.
                This study provided no evidence to support the suggestion of a direct association between the use of epidural anaesthesia in labour and the incidence of long term backache. Despite a significant proportion of women in each group not receiving their allocated analgesia, a significant difference in terms of instrumental delivery rates remained. Satisfaction in both groups of women was high. The spinal portion of the combined spinal epidural technique (CSE) provides dramatic but limited labour analgesia. Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation (TENS) has been noted to modulate pain, in part by the frequency of stimulation chosen. Because nerve action potentials are blocked by local anesthetics in a frequency dependent manner, we speculated that a TENS unit could increase the quality and duration of the spinal portion of a CSE.
                Forty parturients in active spontaneous labour, with a singleton, vertex, term fetus, requesting analgesia were enrolled in a randomized, double blind fashion to receive a standardized CSE with either an active or inactive TENS unit. Prior to CSE placement, TENS intensity thresholds were determined with electrodes placed on the paraspinus muscles at T10-L1, and S2-4; TENS settings for mode, cycle, and pulse width were standardized. Data were collected at timed intervals on pain (VAS), sensory level (pinprick), motor blockade (Bromage), cervical dilatation, and duration of analgesia, and at delivery on fetal and neonatal outcome.
                The duration of the spinal portion of the CSE did not differ between groups (TENS off 91.1+/-33 [mean +/- SD] vs. TENS on 83.1+/-28 min, P = .42). Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and Mantel-Cox log rank analysis showed no difference between the two treatments (P = .28). Analgesia was comparable throughout the first hour of spinal analgesia.
                In healthy labouring parturients, the application of a TENS unit did not alter the quality or duration of labour analgesia provided by the spinal portion of CSE analgesia. Neuraxial blockade is widely used for pain relief in labour. This form of analgesia may be associated with an increase in instrumental delivery rates due to dystocia. 'Traditional' epidurals cause motor blockade and hence immobility. Using a low dose anaesthetic-opioid combination with either epidural or combined spinal-epidural, selective sensory blockade can be achieved, allowing mobility as well as pain relief. In this study, we randomised women with combined spinal-epidural analgesia either to mobilise (upright group n = 25) or to remain recumbent (n = 41) in the second stage of labour. We found women in the upright group had significantly shorter total second stage, (132 vs 109 min,P = 0.019) particularly during the pushing phase (73 vs 51 min, P = 0.011). Although there were fewer instrumental deliveries in the upright group, this was not statistically significant. Women who were randomised to the upright group, did actually mobilise. We conclude that mobilisation in the second stage of labour is possible, and may reduce the length of the second stage. To evaluate the impact of labouring in water during first stage of labour on rates of epidural analgesia and operative delivery in nulliparous women with dystocia.
                Randomised controlled trial.
                University teaching hospital in southern England.
                99 nulliparous women with dystocia (cervical dilation rate < 1 cm/hour in active labour) at low risk of complications. Interventions Immersion in water in birth pool or standard augmentation for dystocia (amniotomy and intravenous oxytocin).
                Primary: epidural analgesia and operative delivery rates. Secondary: augmentation rates with amniotomy and oxytocin, length of labour, maternal and neonatal morbidity including infections, maternal pain score, and maternal satisfaction with care.
                Women randomised to immersion in water had a lower rate of epidural analgesia than women allocated to augmentation (47% v 66%, relative risk 0.71 (95% confidence interval 0.49 to 1.01), number needed to treat for benefit (NNT) 5). They showed no difference in rates of operative delivery (49% v 50%, 0.98 (0.65 to 1.47), NNT 98), but significantly fewer received augmentation (71% v 96%, 0.74 (0.59 to 0.88), NNT 4) or any form of obstetric intervention (amniotomy, oxytocin, epidural, or operative delivery) (80% v 98%, 0.81 (0.67 to 0.92), NNT 5). More neonates of women in the water group were admitted to the neonatal unit (6 v 0, P = 0.013), but there was no difference in Apgar score, infection rates, or umbilical cord pH.
                Labouring in water under midwifery care may be an option for slow progress in labour, reducing the need for obstetric intervention, and offering an alternative pain management strategy. Combined spinal-epidural (CSE) analgesia produces rapid-onset pain relief and allows ambulation in early labor. Epidural local anesthetics may contribute to an increase in operative deliveries by decreasing perineal sensation and causing motor weakness. Operative delivery rates might be reduced with CSE, by avoiding or delaying administration of local anesthetics. This study compares the operative delivery rates associated with a CSE technique and those associated with intravenous meperidine for labor analgesia.
                Healthy parturients at full term were assigned randomly to receive CSE or intravenous meperidine analgesia. The CSE group received 10 microg intrathecal sufentanil, followed by epidural bupivacaine and fentanyl at their next request for analgesia. Parturients receiving intravenous meperidine had 50 mg on demand (maximum, 200 mg in 4 h). Labor and delivery outcomes in both groups were recorded and compared.
                An intent-to-treat analysis of 1,223 women indicated that CSE does not increase the rate of cesarean delivery for dystocia in nulliparous and parous women (CSE, 3.5% vs. intravenous meperidine, 4; P=not significant) or in nulliparous women alone (CSE, 7% vs. intravenous meperidine, 8%; P=not significant). Profound fetal bradycardia that necessitated emergency cesarean delivery within 1 h of the time the mother received sufentanil occurred in 8 of 400 parturients (compared with 0 of 352 who received meperidine; P < 0.01). However, the method of fetal monitoring differed between the two groups. Despite this, neonatal outcomes were similar overall.
                Combined spinal-epidural analgesia during labor does not increase the cesarean delivery rate for dystocia in healthy parturient patients at full term, regardless of parity. However, an unexpected increase in the number of cesarean deliveries for profound fetal bradycardia after intrathecal sufentanil was observed. Further investigation is warranted. To determine whether the rate of instrumental birth in nulliparous women using epidural analgesia is affected by maternal position in the passive second stage of labour.
                A pragmatic prospective randomised trial.
                Consultant maternity unit in the Midlands.
                One hundred and seven nulliparous women using epidural analgesia and reaching the second stage of labour with no contraindications to spontaneous birth.
                The lateral versus the supported sitting position during the passive second stage of labour.
                Mode of birth, incidence of episiotomy, and perineal suturing.
                Recruitment was lower than anticipated (107 vs. 220 planned). Lateral position was associated with lower rates of instrumental birth rate (lateral group 33%; sitting group 52%; p=0.05, RR 0.64, CI for RR: 0.40-1.01; Number-needed-to-treat (NNT)=5), of episiotomy (45% vs. 64%; p=0.05, RR 0.66, CI for RR: 0.44-1.00, NNT=5), and of perineal suturing (78% vs. 86%; p=0.243, RR 0.75, CI for RR 0.47-1.17). The odds ratio for instrumental birth in the sitting group was 2.2 (CI 1.00-4.6). Logistic regression of potential confounder variables was undertaken, due to a large variation in maternal weight between the randomised groups. Of the nine possible confounders tested, only position of the baby's head at full dilation affected the risk of instrumental birth significantly (p=0.4, OR 2.7 where the fetal head was in the lateral or posterior position). Maternal weight did not appear to have any effect. The odds ratio for instrumental delivery for women randomised to the sitting position was slightly higher within the logistic regression model (adjusted OR 2.3).
                Women randomised to the lateral position had a better chance of a spontaneous vaginal birth than those randomised to the supported sitting position. Position of the babies head at full dilation had an additional effect on mode of birth. These effects are not conclusively generalizable. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The lateral position is likely to be at best beneficial, and at the worst no less harmful than the sitting position for most women and their babies who meet the criteria set for this study. Conclusive evidence for or against the technique should be established using larger trials. Combined spinal-epidural is an alternative technique to epidural analgesia for labour, but its benefits are not clearly identified.
                A prospective, blinded, randomized study was undertaken involving 113 women attending a university hospital obstetric department. Analgesia was initiated with intrathecal bupivacaine 0.25% 1 mL + sufentanil 5 microg in the combined spinal-epidural group (n = 54), and with bupivacaine 0.125% + epinephrine 2.5 microg mL(-1) + sufentanil 7.5 microg in the epidural group (n = 59). In both cases this was followed by patient-controlled epidural analgesia with bupivacaine 0.125% (+ sufentanil 0.25 microg mL(-1)). Duration of labour, quality of analgesia and side-effects were compared between groups.
                In the combined spinal-epidural group, the onset of analgesia was faster (5 vs. 15 min, P < 0.001), the consumption of bupivacaine was lower (7.5 vs. 11.3 mg h(-1), P = 0.003) and there was less unilateral analgesia (14.8% vs. 40.7%, P = 0.002) than in the epidural group. The characteristics of labour were similar in both groups. However, in the combined spinal-epidural group, there was a higher incidence of posterior presentation (25.9% vs. 10%, P = 0.03), pruritus (P < 0.001), hypotension (P = 0.002), somnolence (P = 0.01), nausea (P = 0.02) and one case of meningitis.
                The combined spinal-epidural technique provided more effective analgesia during labour than epidural analgesia alone but offered no other advantage. It induced more adverse effects and this should be considered before routinely using the combined spinal-epidural technique. We randomly allocated 93 women in early active labour and requesting epidural analgesia to receive either epidural (n = 48) or combined spinal-epidural analgesia (n = 45). For epidural analgesia 15 ml of bupivacaine 0.1% with 75 micrograms of fentanyl were injected into the epidural space. For combined spinal-epidural analgesia 1 ml of bupivacaine 0.25% with 25 micrograms of fentanyl were injected into the subarachnoid space. For both groups subsequent top-ups of 10 ml of bupivacaine 0.1% with fentanyl 20 micrograms were given using a lightweight patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) pump with a lockout time of 30 min. We assessed analgesia and the degree of motor blockade and found no significant differences in pain or maternal satisfaction scores between the two groups. The time to first top-up was significantly longer in the epidural group than in the CSE group (p = 0.01). The combined spinal-epidural group had significantly greater motor blockade at 30 min than the epidural group (p = 0.01), but there was no difference after this. The PCEA machine failed completely twice and temporarily many times. We conclude that the combined spinal-epidural technique confers no advantages in early active labour. Also, a lightweight PCEA pump needs to be more reliable before we can recommend its use. Maternal position during induction of intrathecal anaesthesia for caesarean section influences block height and haemodynamic stability. In a randomised study of 90 women presenting for elective caesarean section using combined spinal-epidural anaesthesia, three positions were compared--the Oxford position (group O), the right lateral to supine wedged (group R) and the sitting to supine wedged (group S). Hyperbaric bupivacaine 12.5 mg with fentanyl 12.5 microg was injected intrathecally using a needle-through-needle CSE technique. Intravenous ephedrine 6 mg was given every minute that systolic blood pressure fell below 80% of baseline. Time required for block height to reach T5 as assessed by light touch, was similar in the three groups. There were no significant differences in blood pressure although ephedrine requirements were less in group R. There were no significant differences in the incidence of maternal nausea and vomiting or in neonatal outcome as assessed by Apgar scores and umbilical cord blood gas analysis. Although the study failed to show any significant differences in block height between the groups, no women in group O had a block above T2 compared with three in group R and three in group S. The study was designed to compare analgesic efficacy and associated adverse effects between a group of parturients receiving subarachnoid opioids via the combined spinal-epidural (CSE) technique with a group receiving epidural analgesia alone for labor.
                The authors studied 59 healthy parturients admitted for labor and delivery. Group 1 consisted of 26 consecutive patients who received the CSE technique, initially receiving subarachnoid morphine sulfate 0.25 mg, and fentanyl 25 micrograms, for labor analgesia. If patients requested additional analgesia, epidural analgesia was initiated. Group 2 was comprised of 33 consecutive patients who received conventional epidural analgesia. All patients were monitored for the occurrence and treatment of peripartum nausea and vomiting (N/V), pruritus, postdural puncture headache, and respiratory depression.
                Additional analgesia was requested by 20/26 (76%) patients in group 1. Group 1 reported more N/V (50% versus 15%, P = .01) and required more therapy for N/V (31% versus 0%, P < .01) than group 2. Furthermore, group 1 reported having more pruritus (50% versus 3%, P < .01), and required more treatment for pruritus (35% versus 3%, P < .01), than group 2. No patient developed significant respiratory depression. Only one patient in group 1 developed a postdural puncture headache, following unintentional dural puncture with the 18 gauge Tuohy needle.
                The combination of subarachnoid morphine 0.25 mg and fentanyl 25 micrograms, when used for labor analgesia as part of the CSE technique, was associated with a higher incidence of clinically significant nausea and vomiting and pruritus, compared to conventional epidural anesthesia. Furthermore, the combination of subarachnoid morphine and fentanyl proved ineffective in providing adequate pain relief for the duration of labor and delivery for the majority of patients. The authors recommend that subarachnoid morphine and fentanyl serve a limited role in the treatment of labor pain. To compare the efficacy and side effects of 0.2 mg intrathecal (IT) morphine with 0.125% epidural bupivacaine, 62 women in labor were studied. They were randomly divided into three groups: group 1 (n = 20) received IT morphine; group 2 (n = 22) received epidural bupivacaine; and group 3 (n = 20) received a combination of both using a combined spinal-epidural (CSE) technique. According to a visual analogue scale for assessing analgesia, neither IT 0.2 mg morphine nor 10 ml 0.125% epidural bupivacaine was effective in producing adequate pain relief in labor, whereas the combination produced excellent analgesia. The use of IT morphine significantly reduced the dosage requirement of epidural bupivacaine. The incidence of nausea, vomiting, and pruritus was significantly higher when IT morphine had been administered, whereas that of urinary retention did not differ. No serious respiratory depression occurred in any of the patients. When the course of labor was studied, the prior use of IT morphine significantly prolonged the duration of the first stage of labor and the total duration of labor. We conclude that the administration of 0.2 mg IT morphine in combination with epidural administration of 0.125% bupivacaine provides better analgesia than the administration of either drug alone. Two hundred and twenty-nine nulliparous women who requested regional analgesia during labour were given a combined spinal-epidural block. They were randomly allocated to stay in bed or spend at least 20 min of every hour out of bed. There was no significant difference in duration of labour, analgesia requirements, mode of delivery or condition of the baby between the groups. Ambulation appeared to be safe for the mother and baby. Maternal satisfaction with the low-dose combined spinal-epidural was high in both groups. Among nulliparous women, there appears to be an association between the use of epidural analgesia during labor and an increased risk of dystocia. We tested the hypothesis that combined spinal-epidural analgesia, which permits ambulation during labor, is associated with a lower incidence of dystocia than continuous lumbar epidural analgesia.
                Between July 1995 and September 1996, we randomly assigned 761 nulliparous women in spontaneous labor at term who requested epidural analgesia to receive either continuous lumbar epidural analgesia or a combination of spinal and epidural analgesia. Among the women who received combined spinal-epidural analgesia, some were discouraged from walking and others were encouraged to walk. Maternal and neonatal outcomes, the incidence of dystocia necessitating cesarean section, and measures of patients' satisfaction were compared in the two groups.
                There were no significant differences in the overall rate of cesarean section, the incidence of dystocia, the frequency of maternal or fetal complications, the patients' or nursing staff's assessment of the adequacy of analgesia, or the degree of overall satisfaction between the two groups. Significantly more women receiving combined spinal-epidural analgesia had pruritus (P<0.001) and requested additional epidural bolus doses of local anesthetic (P=0.01). For all the women, dystocia necessitating cesarean section was significantly more likely when analgesia was administered with the fetal vertex at a negative station (odds ratio, 2.5; P<0.001) or at less than 4 cm of cervical dilatation (odds ratio, 2.2; P<0.001).
                As compared with continuous lumbar epidural analgesia, the combination of spinal and epidural analgesia is not associated with an overall decrease in the incidence of cesarean delivery. Eighty-seven pregnant mothers undergoing elective Caesarean section were randomly allocated either to the full left lateral position (n = 45) or to the supine position with 12 degrees left lateral tilt (n = 42) after a combined spinal-epidural (CSE) in the sitting position and an initial 2 min in the full right lateral position. Fewer mothers were hypotensive while in the study position [29 (64%) in lateral group vs. 38 (90%) in the tilted supine group; p = 0.03]. Mothers in the lateral group tended to become hypotensive after turning them back to the tilted supine position immediately before surgery; hence the number of mothers who were hypotensive from the insertion of the CSE until delivery were similar [36 (80%) vs. 38 (90%)]. Mothers in the lateral group needed a lower dose of ephedrine to treat their hypotension while in their study position (median (interquartile range [range]) 6 (0-12 [0-36]) mg vs. 12 (6-18 [0-36]) mg, respectively; p = 0.04) but ephedrine requirements were similar overall (12 (6-12 [0-36]) mg vs. 12 (6-18 [0-36]) mg), respectively. The full left lateral position reduces the incidence of early hypotension compared with the tilted supine position with tilt, and makes it easier to treat.
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 conversely less pruritus with low-dose epidurals. There was no difference in ability to mobilise, maternal hypotension, rate of caesarean birth or neonatal outcome. However, the significantly higher incidence of urinary retention, rescue interventions and instrumental deliveries 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.