Home About us Editorial board Search Ahead of print Current issue Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
Journal of Obstrectic Anaesthesia and Critical Care
Search articles
Home Print this page Email this page Small font size Default font size Increase font size Users Online: 31
Year : 2016  |  Volume : 6  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 75-80

Rapid sequence spinal anesthesia versus general anesthesia: A prospective randomized study of anesthesia to delivery time in category-1 caesarean section

Department of Anaestehsiology, Burdwan Medical College, Burdwan, West Bengal, India

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Susmita Bhattacharya
Department of Anaestehsiology, Burdwan Medical College, Burdwan, West Bengal
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/2249-4472.191597

Rights and Permissions

Background and Aims: Spinal anesthesia is the preferred technique over general anesthesia in caesarean section. General anesthesia is still used for category-1 emergency caesarean section because of time constraints. We usually follow rapid sequence general anesthesia in obstetrics to avoid aspiration. However, this technique poses several problems. An approach of spinal anesthesia termed as rapid sequence spinal anesthesia has been described. The present study was designed to compare the time intervals (time for anesthesia, time to surgical readiness, incision to delivery time, emergence time) and Apgar score between rapid sequence spinal anesthesia and rapid sequence general anesthesia during category-1 caesarean section and to evaluate whether rapid sequence spinal anesthesia is a better option in category-1 caesarean section. Materials and Methods: In this prospective randomized study, 60 patients of American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status (ASA-PS) I posted for category-1 emergency caesarean section were randomly allocated into two equal groups and received either of the two techniques. Demographic data, respective time intervals, and Apgar scores were noted and compared. Results: The time for anesthesia, surgical readiness, and emergence were significantly longer (P < 0.001) in rapid sequence general anesthesia group as compared to rapid sequence spinal anesthesia group (144.80 ± 3.42 vs 131.20 ± 3.40 s, 178.76 ± 4.09 vs 169.93 ± 3.08 s, 512.13 ± 34.33 vs 222.10 ± 12.80 s). No significant difference was found in incision to delivery time and Apgar scores between the two groups. Conclusion: Because anesthesia to delivery time is shorter in rapid sequence spinal anesthesia, this technique may be equivalent to rapid sequence general anesthesia in category-1 emergency caesarean section.

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
    PDF Downloaded1502    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 4    

Recommend this journal