Article Sidebar
Published:
Jul 19, 2021Keywords:
Article Details
Submission of a manuscript to this journal is a representation that the manuscript has not been published previously and is not under consideration for publication elsewhere.
All authors named in each manuscript would be required to sign a form (to be supplied by the Editor) so that they may retain their copyright in the article but to assign to us (the Publishers) and its licensees in perpetuity, in all forms, formats and media (whether known or created in the future) to (i) publish, reproduce, distribute, display and store the contribution, (ii) translate the contribution into other languages, create adaptations, reprints, include within collections and create summaries, extracts and/or abstracts of the contribution, (iii) create any other derivative works(s) based on the contribution, (iv) to exploit all subsidiary rights in the contribution, (v) the inclusion of electronic links from the contribution to third party material where-ever it may be located, and (vi) license any thrid party to do any or all of the above.
Main Article Content
Regional versus general anesthesia for different categories of caesarean deliveries amongst Chinese women: A retrospective cohort analysis
Abstract
Purpose: To study anesthetic techniques utilized in various caesarian deliveries, justification for preference of general anesthesia, and failure of regional anesthesia in pregnant Chinese women.
Methods: Clinical data for 512 Chinese women who successfully delivered through caesarian section were used in this analysis. Data comprising information on anesthetic techniques used, explanations for choice of general anesthesia, failure of regional anesthesia, and levels of supervision were collected and analyzed.
Results: Ninety-four of the enrolled women delivered through caesarian category 1, while 112 women delivered via caesarian category 2. Deliveries in caesarian categories 3 and 4 applied to 84 and 222 women, respectively. General anesthesia was used for 219 women, but this procedure was refused by 106 women, while the physician chose it for 34 women. Thirty-six women opted for general anesthesia, while regional anesthesia was used in 293 women. Ten women needed a change from regional anesthesia to general anesthesia due to inadequate regional block, accelerated delivery, and other reasons. General anesthesia was preferred in 17 % of emergency categories, 40 % of semi-emergency categories, and 43 % of elective categories.
Conclusion: Patient awareness, training of health professionals, and multi-disciplinary correspondence will be helpful to caregivers in making consensus decisions with respect to the best anesthesia technique for cesarean delivery.
