FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1589976948> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1589976948 endingPage "106" @default.
• W1589976948 startingPage "103" @default.
• W1589976948 abstract "The ‘‘walking epidural’’ first appeared in the early 1990s. In some ways, it tested our widely held beliefs about how to provide effective and safe labour epidural analgesia and responded to women’s requests to have effective labour analgesia without being confined to bed. In the first versions of the walking epidural, the combined spinalepidural (CSE) technique was used. It provided initial analgesia with intrathecal narcotic, which was followed by a more standard continuous epidural infusion. This novel technique challenged our assumptions about the amount of neuraxial medication needed to initiate and maintain labour analgesia. Many labour analgesia studies ensued that resulted in significant changes to both the technique and the dosing strategies, and they led to a deeper understanding of the way in which local anesthetics and opioids work alone and synergistically in the neuraxium. Critical assessment of ambulation in labour with an epidural in situ has provided enormous benefit to women in labour, has changed how anesthesiologists provide labour epidural analgesia, and has added to the body of literature to convince our skeptical colleagues in obstetrics that epidurals don’t necessarily mean an operative delivery. The end result of this scientific activity is patient-controlled labour epidural analgesia with low-dose solutions—there are so many benefits in that simple phrase. So, why has the enthusiasm for walking epidurals faded? While it is true that ambulation per se has not been shown to alter labour outcome, maintaining mobility appeals to women although they may be at the point of requiring neuraxial analgesia. The fact that they may not take full advantage of this opportunity does not negate its other benefit of minimizing motor block. It is also true that the ‘‘mobile mom’’ can create more work for staff; however, once anesthesiologists establish management and safety protocols for ambulation, the added work belongs to the nurse and/or the midwife, many of whom support maintaining mobility. Safety of the perambulating parturient with an epidural has been established—her balance is just as good as any pregnant woman’s is at term, blood pressure is possibly more stable than in the woman who remains lying in bed and the fetus probably benefits from complete absence of aortocaval compression. So, why has the movement to mobility stalled? Have anesthesiologists lost their taste for the CSE because of fetal bradycardia and maternal pruritus? While CSEs opened the door to mobility, it has been clearly proven that low-dose epidurals with no intrathecal component work incredibly well and allow for safe ambulation. Perhaps we should reflect on the reason this ‘‘fad’’ started. Standard (aka dense) epidural analgesia did not always lead to maternal satisfaction with the analgesia because of the sense of loss of body control and the increased need for an instrumental vaginal delivery, especially if the mother was primiparous. So, intrepid obstetrical anesthesiologists began to challenge the status quo and experiment with the techniques of using intrathecal lipid soluble narcotics for initial analgesia, progressively more dilute solutions in the epidural space for subsequent analgesia, and then applying patient-controlled analgesia technology. Many studies used the ability to ambulate as one of the required outcomes, as it R. Preston, MD (&) Department of Anesthesia, BC Women’s Hospital and Health Centre, Rm 1Q72, 4500 Oak Street, Vancouver, BC V6H 3N1, Canada e-mail: rpreston@cw.bc.ca" @default.
• W1589976948 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1589976948 creator A5085613046 @default.
• W1589976948 date "2010-01-06" @default.
• W1589976948 modified "2023-10-14" @default.
• W1589976948 title "Walking epidurals for labour analgesia: do they benefit anyone?" @default.
• W1589976948 cites W118359102 @default.
• W1589976948 cites W1559647774 @default.
• W1589976948 cites W1978331195 @default.
• W1589976948 cites W1986391076 @default.
• W1589976948 cites W1987503747 @default.
• W1589976948 cites W1988770213 @default.
• W1589976948 cites W1997977197 @default.
• W1589976948 cites W2004539241 @default.
• W1589976948 cites W2004914347 @default.
• W1589976948 cites W2029306442 @default.
• W1589976948 cites W2084778475 @default.
• W1589976948 cites W2087037293 @default.
• W1589976948 cites W2096330876 @default.
• W1589976948 cites W2132611248 @default.
• W1589976948 cites W2134755720 @default.
• W1589976948 cites W2163701283 @default.
• W1589976948 cites W2397487518 @default.
• W1589976948 cites W2753061556 @default.
• W1589976948 cites W3120880811 @default.
• W1589976948 cites W4250325806 @default.
• W1589976948 cites W4250789260 @default.
• W1589976948 doi "https://doi.org/10.1007/s12630-009-9229-0" @default.
• W1589976948 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20052628" @default.
• W1589976948 hasPublicationYear "2010" @default.
• W1589976948 type Work @default.
• W1589976948 sameAs 1589976948 @default.
• W1589976948 citedByCount "11" @default.
• W1589976948 countsByYear W15899769482013 @default.
• W1589976948 countsByYear W15899769482014 @default.
• W1589976948 countsByYear W15899769482015 @default.
• W1589976948 countsByYear W15899769482016 @default.
• W1589976948 countsByYear W15899769482018 @default.
• W1589976948 countsByYear W15899769482019 @default.
• W1589976948 countsByYear W15899769482021 @default.
• W1589976948 countsByYear W15899769482022 @default.
• W1589976948 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W1589976948 hasAuthorship W1589976948A5085613046 @default.
• W1589976948 hasBestOaLocation W15899769481 @default.
• W1589976948 hasConcept C144133560 @default.
• W1589976948 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W1589976948 hasConcept C1862650 @default.
• W1589976948 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W1589976948 hasConceptScore W1589976948C144133560 @default.
• W1589976948 hasConceptScore W1589976948C15744967 @default.
• W1589976948 hasConceptScore W1589976948C1862650 @default.
• W1589976948 hasConceptScore W1589976948C71924100 @default.
• W1589976948 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W1589976948 hasLocation W15899769481 @default.
• W1589976948 hasLocation W15899769482 @default.
• W1589976948 hasOpenAccess W1589976948 @default.
• W1589976948 hasPrimaryLocation W15899769481 @default.
• W1589976948 hasRelatedWork W1506200166 @default.
• W1589976948 hasRelatedWork W1995515455 @default.
• W1589976948 hasRelatedWork W2039318446 @default.
• W1589976948 hasRelatedWork W2048182022 @default.
• W1589976948 hasRelatedWork W2080531066 @default.
• W1589976948 hasRelatedWork W2748952813 @default.
• W1589976948 hasRelatedWork W2899084033 @default.
• W1589976948 hasRelatedWork W3031052312 @default.
• W1589976948 hasRelatedWork W3032375762 @default.
• W1589976948 hasRelatedWork W3108674512 @default.
• W1589976948 hasVolume "57" @default.
• W1589976948 isParatext "false" @default.
• W1589976948 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W1589976948 magId "1589976948" @default.
• W1589976948 workType "article" @default.