Annals of African Medicine
Home About AAM Editorial board Ahead of print Current Issue Archives Instructions Subscribe Contact us Search Login 
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2009  |  Volume : 8  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 250-256

Epidural anesthesia: Views and outcomes of women in labor in a Nigerian hospital


1 Department of Anaesthesiology, College of Health Sciences, University of Port Harcourt, Choba-Port Harcourt, Nigeria
2 School of Medicine and Allied Health Sciences, University of the Gambia, Kanifing, The Gambia

Correspondence Address:
S Fyneface-Ogan
Department of Anaesthesiology, Faculty of Clinical Sciences, College of Health Sciences, University of Port Harcourt, Choba-Port Harcourt
Nigeria
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/1596-3519.59580

Rights and Permissions

Background: Pain during childbirth is a well known cause of dissatisfaction amongst women in labor. The use of epidural analgesia in labor is becoming widespread due to its benefit in terms of pain relief. Method: After approval of the local Ethics Committee on Research and obtaining informed written consent, 50 American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class I-II consecutive multiparous women in labor requesting pain relief were enrolled in this prospective study. After providing description of the two options of pain relief available to them, they were allocated into two groups according to their request-to receive either parenteral opioid/sedative or epidural labor analgesia. Both groups received analgesia of choice at 4-cm cervical os dilatation. The epidural group received 0.125% plain bupivacaine, while the other group received pentazocine/promethazine intravenously. The time taken to locate the epidural space, catheter-related complications encountered and the amount of intravenous fluid used were documented. Result: The two groups were comparable in terms of socio-demographic data. The mean duration of the first and second stages of labor, respectively, were significantly shorter in the epidural group when compared with those in the non-epidural group ([ P < 0.01] and [ P < 0.02]). There was no difference in the rate of cesarean delivery between them - epidural analgesia (32% [8/25]) versus parenteral opioid/sedative (44% [11/25]), (OR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.19-1.90). The maternal blood loss from delivery was minimal, with no statistical difference between the two groups ( P = 0.27). The neonatal outcome was the same in both groups. Closed questionnaire showed that the overall experience of labor was much better (it was also better than expected) in the epidural group when compared with that in the non-epidural group (80% versus 4%). Eighteen (72%) women had inadequate pain relief in the non-epidural group as compared to 2 (8%) women in the epidural group. Conclusion: The study shows that epidural labor analgesia is acceptable to women in our setting. More women in the epidural analgesia group were satisfied with the experience of labor than those who did not receive this form of analgesia than among those who received parenteral opioid/sedative.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed5654    
    Printed338    
    Emailed13    
    PDF Downloaded177    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 8    

Recommend this journal