Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-59b7f5684b-s82fj Total loading time: 1.139 Render date: 2022-09-26T13:56:38.469Z 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 5 - Tips and Tricks for Labor Neuraxial Block

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. 19 - 23
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

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
Paech, MJ, Godkin, R, Webster, S. Complications of obstetric epidural analgesia and anaesthesia: a prospective analysis of 10995 cases. Int J Obstet Anesth 1998; 7:511.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
Crawford, JS. The second thousand epidural blocks in an obstetric hospital practice. Br J Anaesth 1972; 44:1277–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LeCoq, G, Ducot, B, Benhamou, D. Risk factors of inadequate pain relief during epidural analgesia for labor and delivery. Can J Anaesth 1998; 45:719–23.Google Scholar
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
Bauer, ME, Kountanis, JA, Tsen, LC, Greenfield, ML, Mhyrea, JM. Risk factors for failed conversion of labor epidural analgesia to cesarean delivery anesthesia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational trials. Int J Obstet Anesth 2012; 21:294309.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Orbach-Zinger, S, Friedman, L, Avramovich, A, et al. Risk factors for failure to extend labor epidural analgesia to epidural anesthesia for cesarean section. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 2006; 50(8):1014–18.Google ScholarPubMed
Murphy, JD, Ouanes, J-PP, Togioka, BM, et al. Comparison of air and liquid for use in loss-of-resistance technique during labor epidurals: a meta-analysis. J Anesth Clin Res 2011; 2:175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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
Deighan, M, Briain, DO, Shakeban, H, et al. A randomised controlled trial using the Epidrum for labour epidurals. Irish Med J 2015; 7375.
Habib, AS, George, RB, Allen, TK, Olufolabi, AJ. A pilot study to compare the Episure Auto Detect syringe with the glass syringe for identification of the epidural space in parturients. Anesth Analg 2008; 106(2):541–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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
Segal, S, Eappen, S, Datta, S. Superiority of multi-orifice over single-orifice epidural catheters for labor analgesia and cesarean delivery. J Clin Anesth 1997; 9(2):109–12.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
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
Mardirossof, C, Dumont, L, Boulvain, M, Tramer, MR. Fetal bradycardia due to intrathecal opioids for labour analgesia: a systematic review. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 2002; 109:274–81.Google Scholar
Patel, NP, El-Wahab, N, Fernando, R, et al. Fetal effects of combined spinal-epidural vs epidural labour analgesia: a prospective, randomised double-blind study. Anaesthesia 2014; 69(5):458–67.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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; 81:3014.Google ScholarPubMed
Afshan, G, Chohan, U, Khan, FA, et al. Appropriate length of epidural catheter in the epidural space for postoperative analgesia: evaluation by epidurography. Anaesthesia 2011; 66(10):913–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hamilton, CL, Riley, ET, Cohen, SE. Changes in the position of epidural catheters associated with patient movement. Anesthesiology 1997; 86:778–84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Odor, PM, Bampoe, S, Hayward, J, Ster, C, Evans, E. Intrapartum epidural fixation methods: a randomised controlled trial of three different epidural catheter securement devices. Anaesthesia 2016; 71(3):298305.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lyons, GR, Kocarev, MG, Wilson, RC, Columb, MO. A comparison of minimum local anesthetic volumes and doses of epidural bupivacaine (0.125% w/v and 0.25% w/v) for analgesia in labor. Anesth Analg 2007; 104:412–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Christiaens, F, Verbourgh, C, Dierick, A, Camu, F. Effects of diluent volume of a single dose of epidural bupivacaine in parturients during the first stage of labor. Reg Anesth 1998; 23:134–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vallejo, MC, Phelps, AL, Singh, S, Orebaugh, SL, Sah, N. Ultrasound decreases the failed labor epidural rate in resident trainees. Int J Obstet Anesth 2010; 19:373–78.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shaikh, F, Brzezinski, J, Alexander, S, et al. Ultrasound imaging for lumbar punctures and epidural catheterisations: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 2013; 346:f1720.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
×