PubMed · 9819528
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
P R McCartney. Electronic networking can influence practice: selected examples.. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005721-199811000-00013
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
OBJECTIVES: 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. DESIGN: Randomised controlled trial. SETTING: University teaching hospital in southern England. PARTICIPANTS: 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). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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.
BACKGROUND: The postoperative analgesic efficacy of S(+)-ketamine after caudal or i.v. administration following sub-umbilical surgery in children was studied to investigate its principal site of analgesic action. METHODS: Sixty children undergoing caudal block during general anaesthesia for hernia repair or orchidopexy were prospectively randomized to one of three groups: the bupivicaine group received plain bupivacaine 0.25% 1 ml x kg(-1); the caudal ketamine group received caudal plain bupivacaine 0.25% 1 ml x kg(-1) with S(+)-ketamine 0.5 mg x kg(-1); the i.v. ketamine group received caudal plain bupivacaine 0.25% 1 ml x kg(-1) plus S(+)-ketamine 0.5 mg x kg(-1) i.v. Postoperative measurements included analgesic requirements and modified objective pain score for the first 24 h. RESULTS: The median time to first analgesia was significantly longer in the caudal ketamine group (10 h) than in the i.v. ketamine (4.63 h) or bupivacaine (4.75 h) groups (P=0.01). Significantly fewer doses of analgesia were required over the first postoperative 24 h by subjects in the caudal ketamine group (median 1) compared with the i.v. ketamine (median 2) or bupivacaine (median 2.5) groups (P<0.05). There was no difference between the groups in the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting or psychomotor reactions. CONCLUSIONS: We have demonstrated that the addition of caudal S(+)-ketamine to bupivacaine prolongs the duration of postoperative analgesia. However, the same dose of i.v. S(+)-ketamine combined with a plain bupivacaine caudal provides no better analgesia than caudal bupivacaine alone, indicating that the principal analgesic effect of caudal S(+)-ketamine results from a local neuroaxial rather than a systemic effect.
This article describes the current and investigational agents for use in the treatment of acute pain. The use of spinal and epidural routes also are discussed.