JOURNAL HOME CME HOME THIS MONTH PAST ISSUES ETOC COLLECTIONS
AUTHORS REVIEWERS EDITORIAL BOARD FEEDBACK RSS HELP
A&A International Anesthesia Research Society
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a colleague
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Riley, E. T.
Right arrow Articles by Ratner, E. F.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Riley, E. T.
Right arrow Articles by Ratner, E. F.

Anesthesia & Analgesia, Vol 80, 709-712, Copyright © 1995 by International Anesthesia Research Society

GENERAL ARTICLES

Spinal versus epidural anesthesia for cesarean section: a comparison of time efficiency, costs, charges, and complications

ET Riley, SE Cohen, A Macario, JB Desai and EF Ratner
Department of Anesthesia, Stanford University School of Medicine, CA 94305.

Spinal anesthesia recently has gained popularity for elective cesarean section. Our anesthesia service changed from epidural to spinal anesthesia for elective cesarean section in 1991. To evaluate the significance of this change in terms of time management, costs, charges, and complication rates, we retrospectively reviewed the charts of patients who had received epidural (n = 47) or spinal (n = 47) anesthesia for nonemergent cesarean section. Patients who received epidural anesthesia had significantly longer total operating room (OR) times than those who received spinal anesthesia (101 +/- 20 vs 83 +/- 16 min, [mean +/- SD] P < 0.001); this was caused by longer times spent in the OR until surgical incision (46 +/- 11 vs 29 +/- 6 min, P < 0.001). Length of time spent in the postanesthesia recovery unit was similar in both groups. Supplemental intraoperative intravenous (i.v.) analgesics and anxiolytics were required more often in the epidural group (38%) than in the spinal group (17%) (P < 0.05). Complications were noted in six patients with epidural anesthesia and none with spinal anesthesia (P < 0.05). Average per-patient charges were more for the epidural group than for the spinal group. Although direct cost differences between the groups were negligible, there were more substantial indirect costs differences. We conclude that spinal block may provide better and more cost effective anesthesia for uncomplicated, elective cesarean sections.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Anesth. Analg.Home page
B. Roboubi
Extended Release Epidural Morphine, Far from Ideal for Postcesarean Delivery Pain Control
Anesth. Analg., December 1, 2007; 105(6): 1864 - 1864.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Anesth. Analg.Home page
B. Carvalho and E. Riley
Extended Release Epidural Morphine, Far from Ideal for Postcesarean Delivery Pain Control
Anesth. Analg., December 1, 2007; 105(6): 1864 - 1865.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Anesth. Analg.Home page
S. Visalyaputra, O. Rodanant, W. Somboonviboon, K. Tantivitayatan, S. Thienthong, and W. Saengchote
Spinal Versus Epidural Anesthesia for Cesarean Delivery in Severe Preeclampsia: A Prospective Randomized, Multicenter Study
Anesth. Analg., September 1, 2005; 101(3): 862 - 868.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Anesth. Analg.Home page
M. Schuster, A. Gottschalk, J. Berger, and T. Standl
A Retrospective Comparison of Costs for Regional and General Anesthesia Techniques
Anesth. Analg., March 1, 2005; 100(3): 786 - 794.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Anesth. Analg.Home page
E. Lew, S.-W. Yeo, and E. Thomas
Combined Spinal-Epidural Anesthesia Using Epidural Volume Extension Leads to Faster Motor Recovery After Elective Cesarean Delivery: A Prospective, Randomized, Double-Blind Study
Anesth. Analg., March 1, 2004; 98(3): 810 - 814.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Anesth. Analg.Home page
A. G. M. Aya, R. Mangin, N. Vialles, J.-M. Ferrer, C. Robert, J. Ripart, and J.-E. de La Coussaye
Patients with Severe Preeclampsia Experience Less Hypotension During Spinal Anesthesia for Elective Cesarean Delivery than Healthy Parturients: A Prospective Cohort Comparison
Anesth. Analg., September 1, 2003; 97(3): 867 - 872.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Anesth. Analg.Home page
P. H. Lennox, C. Chilvers, and H. Vaghadia
Selective Spinal Anesthesia Versus Desflurane Anesthesia in Short Duration Outpatient Gynecological Laparoscopy: A Pharmacoeconomic Comparison
Anesth. Analg., March 1, 2002; 94(3): 565 - 568.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Anesth. Analg.Home page
T. Marino, L. C. Goudas, V. Steinbok, S. D. Craigo, and R. W. Yarnell
The Anesthetic Management of Triplet Cesarean Delivery: A Retrospective Case Series of Maternal Outcomes
Anesth. Analg., October 1, 2001; 93(4): 991 - 995.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins Anesthesia & Analgesia® is published for the International Anesthesia Research Society® by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins with the assistance of Stanford University Libraries' HighWire Press®. Copyright 2006 by the International Anesthesia Research Society. Online ISSN: 1526-7598   Print ISSN: 0003-2999 HighWire Press
Copyright © 1995 by the International Anesthesia Research Society.