Kerem İNANOĞLU, BUKET ÇAĞLA ÖZBAKIŞ AKKURT, Zeynel ASFUROĞLU, Senem URFALI, Selim TURHANOĞLU

Sezaryen operasyonlarında genel anestezi ile rejyonal anestezinin bebek apgar skorları üzerine etkilerinin karşılaştırılması: 196 olgunun retrospektif değerlendirilmesi

Amaç: Bu çalışma; Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesi Tayfur Ata Sökmen Tıp Fakültesi Hastanesi’nde 2004–2007 yıllarında sezaryen operasyonlarında uygulanan anestezi yöntemlerinin bebek Apgar skorları üzerine etkilerini araştırmak amacıyla planlandı. Yöntem: Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesi Tayfur Ata Sökmen Tıp Fakültesi Hastanesi’nde 2004–2007 yıllarında gerçekleştirilen 196 sezaryen operasyonunun kayıtları incelenerek, genel ve rejyonal anestezi uygulanan olguların bebek Apgar skorları karşılaştırıldı. Bulgular: Genel ve rejyonal anestezi uygulanan olgularda anne yaşı, gestasyon haftası ve ağırlık yönünden anlamlı bir fark bulunmadı (p > 0.05). Her iki grupta da 1. ve 5. dk bebek Apgar skorları benzerdi (p > 0.05). Sonuç: Hastanemiz ameliyathanesinde 2004–2007 yılları arasında gerçekleştirilen sezaryen operasyonlarında uygulanan genel ve rejyonal anestezi yöntemlerinin bebek Apgar skorları üzerine anlamlı bir etkisinin olmadığını gözlemledik.

Anahtar Kelimeler:

Anestezi, blok, Geriyedönük çalışma, Sezaryen, Apgar skoru, Anestezi, genel

Comparison of the effects of general and regional anesthesia on apgar scores in patients undergoing cesarean section: Retrospective evaluation of 196 cases

Objective: This study was designed to investigate the effects of anesthesia methods performed in patients undergoing cesarean section in Mustafa Kemal University, Tayfur Ata Sökmen Faculty of Medicine between 2004 and 2007, on Apgar scores. Method: Apgar scores of patients who received general or regional anesthesia in cesarean sections performed in Mustafa Kemal University, Tayfur Ata Sökmen Faculty of Medicine between 2004 and 2007 were retrospectively investigated and compared. Results: No difference was found regarding maternal age, gestation week, and weight of patients who received general or regional anesthesia (p > 0.05). Apgar scores recorded at 1st and 5th min were also similar between the groups (p > 0.05). Conclusion: We observed that general and regional anesthetic methods performed in patients undergoing cesarean section in our hospital through 2004–2007 years had no significant effect on Apgar scores.

Keywords:

Anesthesia, Conduction, Retrospective Studies, Cesarean Section, Apgar Score, Anesthesia, General,

PDF

___

1. The Information Centre. NHS Maternity Statistics, England: 2005–06. Leeds: IC, 2007
2. Practice Guidelines for Obstetric Anesthesia: An Updated Report by the American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Obstetric Anesthesia. Special Articles Anesthesiology 2007; 106(4): 843–63.
3. Spielman FJ, Corke BC. Advantages and disadvantages of regional anesthesia for cesarean section. A review. J Reprod Med 1985; 30(11): 832–40.
4. Kayhan Z. Klinik Anestezi. 2. Baskı. İstanbul: Logos Yayıncılık Tic. A.Ş. 1997: 623-38.
5. Erdem MK, Özgen S, Coşkun F. Obstetrik Anestezi ve Analjezi, Kişnişçi H, Gökşin E (Eds), Temel Kadın Hastalıkları ve Doğum Bilgisi, Ankara, Melisa Matbaacılık, 1996, 173–186.
6. Mimaroğlu C. Obstetrik Anestezi. XXIX. Türk Anesteziyoloji ve Reanimasyon Kongresi Gelişme Kurs Kitabı, Mersin,1995, 62–71.
7. Afolabi BB, Lesi FE, Merah NA, Regional versus general anaesthesia for caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2006; 18(4): CD004350.
8. Krishnan L, Gunasekaran N, Bhaskaranand N. Neonatal effects of anesthesia for caesarean section. Indian J Pediatr 1995; 62(1): 109–13.
9. Ratcliffe FM, Evans JM. Neonatal wellbeing after elective caesarean delivery with general, spinal, and epidural anaesthesia. Eur J Anaesth 1993; 10(3): 175–181.
10. Abboud TK, Nagappala S, Murakawa K, et al. Comparison of the effects of general and regional anesthesia for cesarean section on neonatal neurologic and adaptive capacity scores. Anesth Analg 1985; 64(10): 996–1000.
11. Kavak ZN, Başgül A, Ceyhan N. Short-term outcome of newborn infants: spinal versus general anesthesia for elective cesarean section. A prospective randomized study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol 2001; 100(1): 50–4.
12. Sener EB, Guldogus F, Karakaya D, Baris S, Kocamanoglu S, Tur A. Comparison of neonatal effects of epidural and general anesthesia for cesarean section. Gynecol Obstet Invest 2003; 55(1): 41–5.
13. Rolbin SH, Cohen MM, Levinton CM, Kelly EN, Farine D. The premature infant: anesthesia for cesarean delivery. Anesth Analg 1994; 78(5): 912–7.
14. Kolatat T, Somboonnanonda A, Lertakyamanee J, Chinachot T, Tritrakarn T, Muangkasem J. Effects of general and regional anesthesia on the neonate (a prospective, randomized trial). J Med Assoc Thai 1999; 82(1): 40–5.
15. Ong BY, Cohen MM, Palahniuk RJ. Anesthesia for cesarean section--effects on neonates. Anesth Analg 1989; 68(3): 270–5.
16. Gordon A, Mckechnie EJ, Jeffrey H. Pediatric presence at cesarean section: justified or not? Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005; 193: 599–605.
17. Bowring J, Fraser N, Vause S, Heazell AE. Is regional anaesthesia beter than general anaesthesia for caesarean section? J Obstet Gynaecol 2006; 26(5): 433-4.
18. Dyer RA, Els I, Farbas J, Torr GJ, Schoeman LK, James MF. Prospective, randomized trial comparing general with spinal anesthesia for cesarean delivery in preeclamptic patients with a nonreassuring fetal heart trace. Anesthesiology 2003; 99(3): 561–9.