Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-59b7f5684b-2bkkj Total loading time: 1.043 Render date: 2022-09-26T14:04:34.231Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "displayNetworkTab": true, "displayNetworkMapGraph": false, "useSa": true } hasContentIssue true

Book contents

Chapter 3 - Breakthrough Pain after Labor Epidural Analgesia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 March 2019

Tauqeer Husain
Affiliation:
Ashford and St Peter’s NHS Foundation Trust, Surrey
Roshan Fernando
Affiliation:
Womens Wellness and Research Centre, Hamad Medical Corporation, Qatar
Scott Segal
Affiliation:
Wake Forest University, North Carolina
Get access

Summary

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
Obstetric Anesthesiology
An Illustrated Case-Based Approach
, pp. 10 - 14
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References

Beilin, Y, Zahn, J, Bernstein, HH, et al. Treatment of incomplete analgesia after placement of an epidural catheter and administration of local anesthetic for women in labor. Anesthesiology 1998; 88:1502–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pan, PH, Bogard, TD, Owen, MD. Incidence and characteristics of failures in obstetric neuraxial analgesia and anesthesia: a retrospective analysis of 19,259 deliveries. Int J Obstet Anesth 2004; 13:227–33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eappen, S, Blinn, A, Segal, S. Incidence of epidural catheter replacement in parturients: a retrospective chart review. Int J Obstet Anesth 1998; 7:220–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chadwick, HS, Posner, K, Caplan, RA, Ward, RJ, Cheney, FW. A comparison of obstetric and nonobstetric anesthesia malpractice claims. Anesthesiology 1991; 74:242–49.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Agaram, R, Douglas, MJ, McTaggart, RA, Gunka, V. Inadequate pain relief with labor epidurals: a multivariate analysis of associated factors. Int J Obstet Anesth 2009; 18:1014.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tonidandel, A, Booth, J, D’Angelo, R, Harris, L, Tonidandel, S. Anesthetic and obstetric outcomes in morbidly obese parturients: a 20-year follow-up retrospective cohort study. Int J Obstet Anesth 2014; 23:357–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ko, JY, Leffert, LR. Clinical implications of neuraxial anesthesia in the parturient with scoliosis. Anesth Analg 2009; 109:1930–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bauchat, JR, McCarthy, RJ, Koski, TR, et al. Prior lumbar discectomy surgery does not alter the efficacy of neuraxial labor analgesia. Anesth Analg 2012; 115:348–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grau, T, Leipold, RW, Conradi, R, Martin, E. Ultrasound control for presumed difficult epidural puncture. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 2001; 45:766–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Arzola, C, Mikhael, R, Margarido, C, Carvalho, JC. Spinal ultrasound versus palpation for epidural catheter insertion in labour: a randomised controlled trial. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2014; 31:17.Google Scholar
Beilin, Y, Arnold, I, Telfeyan, C, Bernstein, HH, Hossain, S. Quality of analgesia when air versus saline is used for identification of the epidural space in the parturient. Reg Anesth Pain Med 2000; 25:596–99.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Segal, S, Arendt, KW. A retrospective effectiveness study of loss of resistance to air or saline for identification of the epidural space. Anesth Analg 2010; 110:558–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Antibas, PL, do Nascimento, Junior P, Braz, LG, et al. Air versus saline in the loss of resistance technique for identification of the epidural space. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014; 7:CD008938.Google Scholar
Beilin, Y, Bernstein, HH, Zucker-Pinchoff, B. The optimal distance that a multiorifice epidural catheter should be threaded into the epidural space. Anesth Analg 1995; 81:301–4.Google ScholarPubMed
D’Angelo, R, Foss, ML, Livesay, CH. A comparison of multiport and uniport epidural catheters in laboring patients. Anesth Analg 1997; 84:1276–79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jaime, F, Mandell, GL, Vallejo, MC, Ramanathan, S. Uniport soft-tip, open-ended catheters versus multiport firm-tipped close-ended catheters for epidural labor analgesia: a quality assurance study. J Clin Anesth 2000; 12:8993.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Norris, MC. Are spinal-epidural catheters reliable? Int J Obstet Anesth 2000; 9:36.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Simmons, SW, Taghizadeh, N, Dennis, AT, Hughes, D, Cyna, AM. Combined spinal-epidural versus epidural analgesia in labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012; 10:CD003401.Google ScholarPubMed
Collier, CB. The intradural space: the fourth place to go astray during epidural block. Int J Obstet Anesth 2010; 19:133–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Collier, CB. Why obstetric epidurals fail: a study of epidurograms. Int J of Obstet Anesth 1996; 5:1931.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Usubiaga, JE, dos Reis, A, Jr, Usubiaga, LE. Epidural misplacement of catheters and mechanisms of unilateral blockade. Anesthesiology 1970; 32:158–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beilin, Y, Zahn, J, Bernstein, HH, et al. Treatment of incomplete analgesia after placement of an epidural catheter and administration of local anesthetic for women in labor. Anesthesiology 1998; 88:1502–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pan, PH, Bogard, TD, Owen, MD. Incidence and characteristics of failures in obstetric neuraxial analgesia and anesthesia: a retrospective analysis of 19,259 deliveries. Int J Obstet Anesth 2004; 13:227–33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eappen, S, Blinn, A, Segal, S. Incidence of epidural catheter replacement in parturients: a retrospective chart review. Int J Obstet Anesth 1998; 7:220–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chadwick, HS, Posner, K, Caplan, RA, Ward, RJ, Cheney, FW. A comparison of obstetric and nonobstetric anesthesia malpractice claims. Anesthesiology 1991; 74:242–49.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Agaram, R, Douglas, MJ, McTaggart, RA, Gunka, V. Inadequate pain relief with labor epidurals: a multivariate analysis of associated factors. Int J Obstet Anesth 2009; 18:1014.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tonidandel, A, Booth, J, D’Angelo, R, Harris, L, Tonidandel, S. Anesthetic and obstetric outcomes in morbidly obese parturients: a 20-year follow-up retrospective cohort study. Int J Obstet Anesth 2014; 23:357–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ko, JY, Leffert, LR. Clinical implications of neuraxial anesthesia in the parturient with scoliosis. Anesth Analg 2009; 109:1930–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bauchat, JR, McCarthy, RJ, Koski, TR, et al. Prior lumbar discectomy surgery does not alter the efficacy of neuraxial labor analgesia. Anesth Analg 2012; 115:348–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grau, T, Leipold, RW, Conradi, R, Martin, E. Ultrasound control for presumed difficult epidural puncture. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 2001; 45:766–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Arzola, C, Mikhael, R, Margarido, C, Carvalho, JC. Spinal ultrasound versus palpation for epidural catheter insertion in labour: a randomised controlled trial. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2014; 31:17.Google Scholar
Beilin, Y, Arnold, I, Telfeyan, C, Bernstein, HH, Hossain, S. Quality of analgesia when air versus saline is used for identification of the epidural space in the parturient. Reg Anesth Pain Med 2000; 25:596–99.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Segal, S, Arendt, KW. A retrospective effectiveness study of loss of resistance to air or saline for identification of the epidural space. Anesth Analg 2010; 110:558–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Antibas, PL, do Nascimento, Junior P, Braz, LG, et al. Air versus saline in the loss of resistance technique for identification of the epidural space. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014; 7:CD008938.Google Scholar
Beilin, Y, Bernstein, HH, Zucker-Pinchoff, B. The optimal distance that a multiorifice epidural catheter should be threaded into the epidural space. Anesth Analg 1995; 81:301–4.Google ScholarPubMed
D’Angelo, R, Foss, ML, Livesay, CH. A comparison of multiport and uniport epidural catheters in laboring patients. Anesth Analg 1997; 84:1276–79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jaime, F, Mandell, GL, Vallejo, MC, Ramanathan, S. Uniport soft-tip, open-ended catheters versus multiport firm-tipped close-ended catheters for epidural labor analgesia: a quality assurance study. J Clin Anesth 2000; 12:8993.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Norris, MC. Are spinal-epidural catheters reliable? Int J Obstet Anesth 2000; 9:36.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Simmons, SW, Taghizadeh, N, Dennis, AT, Hughes, D, Cyna, AM. Combined spinal-epidural versus epidural analgesia in labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012; 10:CD003401.Google ScholarPubMed
Collier, CB. The intradural space: the fourth place to go astray during epidural block. Int J Obstet Anesth 2010; 19:133–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Collier, CB. Why obstetric epidurals fail: a study of epidurograms. Int J of Obstet Anesth 1996; 5:1931.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Usubiaga, JE, dos Reis, A, Jr, Usubiaga, LE. Epidural misplacement of catheters and mechanisms of unilateral blockade. Anesthesiology 1970; 32:158–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beilin, Y, Zahn, J, Bernstein, HH, et al. Treatment of incomplete analgesia after placement of an epidural catheter and administration of local anesthetic for women in labor. Anesthesiology 1998; 88:1502–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pan, PH, Bogard, TD, Owen, MD. Incidence and characteristics of failures in obstetric neuraxial analgesia and anesthesia: a retrospective analysis of 19,259 deliveries. Int J Obstet Anesth 2004; 13:227–33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eappen, S, Blinn, A, Segal, S. Incidence of epidural catheter replacement in parturients: a retrospective chart review. Int J Obstet Anesth 1998; 7:220–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chadwick, HS, Posner, K, Caplan, RA, Ward, RJ, Cheney, FW. A comparison of obstetric and nonobstetric anesthesia malpractice claims. Anesthesiology 1991; 74:242–49.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Agaram, R, Douglas, MJ, McTaggart, RA, Gunka, V. Inadequate pain relief with labor epidurals: a multivariate analysis of associated factors. Int J Obstet Anesth 2009; 18:1014.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tonidandel, A, Booth, J, D’Angelo, R, Harris, L, Tonidandel, S. Anesthetic and obstetric outcomes in morbidly obese parturients: a 20-year follow-up retrospective cohort study. Int J Obstet Anesth 2014; 23:357–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ko, JY, Leffert, LR. Clinical implications of neuraxial anesthesia in the parturient with scoliosis. Anesth Analg 2009; 109:1930–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bauchat, JR, McCarthy, RJ, Koski, TR, et al. Prior lumbar discectomy surgery does not alter the efficacy of neuraxial labor analgesia. Anesth Analg 2012; 115:348–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grau, T, Leipold, RW, Conradi, R, Martin, E. Ultrasound control for presumed difficult epidural puncture. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 2001; 45:766–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Arzola, C, Mikhael, R, Margarido, C, Carvalho, JC. Spinal ultrasound versus palpation for epidural catheter insertion in labour: a randomised controlled trial. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2014; 31:17.Google Scholar
Beilin, Y, Arnold, I, Telfeyan, C, Bernstein, HH, Hossain, S. Quality of analgesia when air versus saline is used for identification of the epidural space in the parturient. Reg Anesth Pain Med 2000; 25:596–99.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Segal, S, Arendt, KW. A retrospective effectiveness study of loss of resistance to air or saline for identification of the epidural space. Anesth Analg 2010; 110:558–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Antibas, PL, do Nascimento, Junior P, Braz, LG, et al. Air versus saline in the loss of resistance technique for identification of the epidural space. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014; 7:CD008938.Google Scholar
Beilin, Y, Bernstein, HH, Zucker-Pinchoff, B. The optimal distance that a multiorifice epidural catheter should be threaded into the epidural space. Anesth Analg 1995; 81:301–4.Google ScholarPubMed
D’Angelo, R, Foss, ML, Livesay, CH. A comparison of multiport and uniport epidural catheters in laboring patients. Anesth Analg 1997; 84:1276–79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jaime, F, Mandell, GL, Vallejo, MC, Ramanathan, S. Uniport soft-tip, open-ended catheters versus multiport firm-tipped close-ended catheters for epidural labor analgesia: a quality assurance study. J Clin Anesth 2000; 12:8993.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Norris, MC. Are spinal-epidural catheters reliable? Int J Obstet Anesth 2000; 9:36.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Simmons, SW, Taghizadeh, N, Dennis, AT, Hughes, D, Cyna, AM. Combined spinal-epidural versus epidural analgesia in labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012; 10:CD003401.Google ScholarPubMed
Collier, CB. The intradural space: the fourth place to go astray during epidural block. Int J Obstet Anesth 2010; 19:133–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Collier, CB. Why obstetric epidurals fail: a study of epidurograms. Int J of Obstet Anesth 1996; 5:1931.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Usubiaga, JE, dos Reis, A, Jr, Usubiaga, LE. Epidural misplacement of catheters and mechanisms of unilateral blockade. Anesthesiology 1970; 32:158–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×