FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2901094512> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2901094512 abstract "INTRODUCTION:Until this last century, labour pain had been exemplified as a traumatic and miserable event in a women’s life. Various methods have been tried since time immemorial to alleviate this pain. However, this endeavour did not receive much support till the late 19th century, because of various medical and religious reasons. Labour is a complex mixture of biological mechanisms with mixed emotions and pain .People believed that this labour pain had lot of biological significance and an attempt to abolish it would be potentially dangerous to both mother and fetus and would alter uterine contractions and prolong the delivery.Later there was a breakthrough for this in 1853, when Sir John Snow anaesthetized queen Victoria with chloroform for the delivery of her 8th baby prince Leopold , She later said Dr Snow administered the blessed chloroform and its effect was calming and relaxing beyond measure.“Childbirth has been recognized as among the most painful experiences known”, (melzak and his colleagues) have reported that after spending 15 years studying the physiology of pain, and of applying the Mc Gill Questionnaire as a comparative measure of the intensity of naturally occurring and artificially provoked pain-and the effectiveness of the technique of analgesia-they undertook a study on labour pain .They concluded that the pain of labour was the most severe they had assessed, thus making obstetrical analgesia highly in demand today. Numerous strategies either non-pharmacologic e.g., Hypnosis, Transcutaneous nerve stimulation, Acupuncture, Abdominal decompression, Yoga, parenteral drugs, Inhalational analgesics, Obstetric blocks or epidural blockade are considered to tackle this pain.Studies suggest that providing pain relief has positive impact on both mother and fetus and the outcome of labour.Out of all the analgesic methods tried ACOG suggests that “Epidural block is the most effective and least depressant (pharmacologic option) allowing for an alert mother”.Epidural analgesia is highly popular in west. In India, it’s still not much popularized due to unfamiliarity, and inexpert personals. The mother should know well before term, how she will be accommodated during labour and what will be done to achieve a safe and pleasant delivery. The mother must be encouraged to express her preference regarding posture, analgesia and mobility. Fear of the un known is more dreadful than fear of the known, and fear or anxiety in labour is equally as detrimental to both mother and fetus as is pain in labour.AIM OF THE STUDY:To study the effects of epidural analgesia on labour, maternal and neonatal outcome.To compare the efficacy and side effects of epidural analgesia with that of intramuscular pethidine.OBJECTIVES:1. To compare the efficacy of both intramuscular pethidine and epidural analgesia.2. To compare the duration of labour in both the groups after the administration of the drug.3. To compare the normal vaginal delivery rate to instrumental and caesarean delivery rate in both the groups.4. To compare the maternal haemodynamic status ,maternal satisfaction and pain score.5. To compare the intrapartum and postpartum complications if any.6. To analyze the maternal and fetal side effects in both the groups.MATERIALS AND METHODS:The study was conducted in the department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, PSG Institute of Medical Science and Research, Coimbatore.Study Design:Prospective randomized controlled trial.Study Population:Study group consists of two groups. Each group has 100 antenatal mothers in labour.Inclusion Criteria:Singleton pregnancy with vertex presentation,Pregnancy complicated by • hypertensive disorders of pregnancy,• Respiratory diseases.Exclusion Criteria:• Bleeding diathesis,• Local and systemic sepsis,• Central nevous system disorders,• Previous caeserian section,• Multiple pregnancy,• Mal presentations,• History of hypersensitivity to the drug,• Chronic musculoskeletal disease of the lumbo sacral region,• Mother not willing to use the drug.STATISTICAL ANALYSIS:The statistical analysis was performed using the statistical software SPSS 16.0.Descriptive analyses were performed by the calculation of minimum, maximum median and percentages. The continuous variables were analyzed using the Mann-Whitney U test and categorical data were compared using a Pearson χ2 test or Fisher’s exact test, depending on the data meeting assumptions.Significance was defined as P<0.05.SUMMARY:This study was done in PSG Institute of Medical Science and Research, Coimbatore in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology.Primary aim of the study was to study the effect of epidural analgesia on labour, maternal and neonatal outcome.Seconadary aim was to compare the efficacy and side effects of epidural analgesia and intramuscular pethidine.Total number of patients enrolled for the study was 200. These 200 consecutive patients were alternatively assigned to epidural analgesia and parenteral pethidine in their active phase of labour. Thus each study group had 100 patients. Detailed history and examination of the patient was done and a base line CTG was taken. Once the patient gets in to active labour she was randomly allocated into either epidural analgesic group or intramuscular pethidine group.Vital parameters, fetal heart rate and uterine contractions were monitored following administration of the drug ,every 5 minutes for 60 minutes following loading dose completion and every 30 minutes thereafter until delivery.Labour was augmented with oxytocin and any side effects or complications during the study period was noted.The observations noted were as follows:• Age, parity and gestational age were not statistically different in both the groups.• Pain score was assessed which showed significant less pain for patients in epidural group when compared to pethidine group (p<0.001).• Cervical dilatation at the time of administration of drug was not statistically different (P>0.05).• We could not found any significant difference (P=0.729) in the time interval from administration of drug to full dilatation of cervix. (The mean rank of Epidural and Pethidine were 99.12 and 101.88 respectively.The Mann –Whitney U =4862.5 and P=0.729)• Duration of second stage of labour was also not significantly different (P=0.152) in these two groups.• Rate of instrumental deliveries was found to be more with epidural group (38%) vs. (13%) in pethidine group, with significant statistical difference (p<0.001). The major indication of instrumental delivery in Epidural group was failed maternal effort, which could be because of perineal relaxation and motor block.• There was no significant difference in the rate of caesarean section between the study groups (P=0.8711).• Mode of placental separation and post partum complications were not statistically different with (P =0.121) and (P=0.297) respectively.• In our study APGAR score at 1minute and 5 minute in Epidural and Pethidine group showed statistically significant difference (P= 0.0335) and (P=0.008) respectively ,showing better APGAR for babies born after epidural analgesia. NICU admissions in the two groups also showed no significant difference (P=0.1165).• 77% of patients in epidural group had no complication during the study period. Incidence of Dural puncture, fever and motor blockade were 2%, incidence of head ache and tachycardia were 4% and 9% patients complained of urinary retention. In pethidine group 30 % patients complained of vomiting; sedative effect of the drug was also significantly more with pethidine group.CONCLUSION:Labour analgesia strives at making child birth a less traumatic and providing a more comfortable zone for a mother to welcome her baby .To make this remarkably possible we should adopt the best possible technique which yields excellent analgesia with minimal side effects on both mother and baby.The inference of our study shows that analgesia provided by lumbar epidural analgesia is remarkably better than parenteral pethidine, at the same time duration of first, second and third stage of labour, placental separation, post partum complications ,rate of caeserian delivery were all comparable between the two groups.Parenteral pethidine is still a good option for analgesia in poor resource setting or in conditions where epidural analgesia is contraindicated." @default.
• W2901094512 created "2018-11-29" @default.
• W2901094512 creator A5010991264 @default.
• W2901094512 date "2013-04-01" @default.
• W2901094512 modified "2023-09-26" @default.
• W2901094512 title "Epidural analgesia in labour and its outcome" @default.
• W2901094512 hasPublicationYear "2013" @default.
• W2901094512 type Work @default.
• W2901094512 sameAs 2901094512 @default.
• W2901094512 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2901094512 crossrefType "dissertation" @default.
• W2901094512 hasAuthorship W2901094512A5010991264 @default.
• W2901094512 hasConcept C144133560 @default.
• W2901094512 hasConcept C148220186 @default.
• W2901094512 hasConcept C162324750 @default.
• W2901094512 hasConcept C175444787 @default.
• W2901094512 hasConcept C42219234 @default.
• W2901094512 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2901094512 hasConceptScore W2901094512C144133560 @default.
• W2901094512 hasConceptScore W2901094512C148220186 @default.
• W2901094512 hasConceptScore W2901094512C162324750 @default.
• W2901094512 hasConceptScore W2901094512C175444787 @default.
• W2901094512 hasConceptScore W2901094512C42219234 @default.
• W2901094512 hasConceptScore W2901094512C71924100 @default.
• W2901094512 hasLocation W29010945121 @default.
• W2901094512 hasOpenAccess W2901094512 @default.
• W2901094512 hasPrimaryLocation W29010945121 @default.
• W2901094512 hasRelatedWork W1615111656 @default.
• W2901094512 hasRelatedWork W1908391549 @default.
• W2901094512 hasRelatedWork W1973783098 @default.
• W2901094512 hasRelatedWork W1985346457 @default.
• W2901094512 hasRelatedWork W2006985645 @default.
• W2901094512 hasRelatedWork W2025401998 @default.
• W2901094512 hasRelatedWork W2081788906 @default.
• W2901094512 hasRelatedWork W2094632224 @default.
• W2901094512 hasRelatedWork W2186554265 @default.
• W2901094512 hasRelatedWork W2318836525 @default.
• W2901094512 hasRelatedWork W2360788053 @default.
• W2901094512 hasRelatedWork W2379772899 @default.
• W2901094512 hasRelatedWork W2389232974 @default.
• W2901094512 hasRelatedWork W2401984468 @default.
• W2901094512 hasRelatedWork W2408954651 @default.
• W2901094512 hasRelatedWork W2565862544 @default.
• W2901094512 hasRelatedWork W2899335715 @default.
• W2901094512 hasRelatedWork W2903105181 @default.
• W2901094512 hasRelatedWork W2909247610 @default.
• W2901094512 hasRelatedWork W2184949102 @default.
• W2901094512 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2901094512 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2901094512 magId "2901094512" @default.
• W2901094512 workType "dissertation" @default.