Advertisement

Does Epidural Analgesia Prolong Labor and Increase the Incidence of Instrumental or Operative Delivery?

  • M. Finster
Part of the Developments in Critical Care Medicine and Anesthesiology book series (DCCA, volume 30)

Abstract

The potential effects of epidural analgesia on the progress of labor and the incidence of operative or instrumental delivery has been a subject of lasting controversy, particularly between obstetricians and anesthesiologists. This controversy is difficult to resolve, since it is almost impossible to devise fully randomized, prospective studies comparing different modes of pain relief during the first stage of labor. There is no lack of retrospective reviews. Most of them indicate that epidural analgesia is associated with longer labors and/or an increased incidence of forceps delivery or cesarean section (1–7). Similar results were reported in a few nonrandomized prospective studies (8–11), particularly when epidural analgesia was started as early as in the latent phase of labor (9). Most authors tend to see a causal relationship even though, without randomization, selection bias cannot be ruled out. Women having a painful and protracted labor (malpresentation, dystocia) are more likely to request epidural analgesia than the less affected “controls.” The same patients are also more likely to require an operative or instrumental delivery. Further, obstetricians are more prone to shorten the second stage of labor with the use of forceps or vacuum extractor when epidural analgesia is present. There are several reports indicating that epidural analgesia has no adverse effects on the progress of labor or the woman’s ability to deliver vaginally (12–17). Particularly instructive among them are the studies showing that introduction of an “on demand” epidural service did not increase the primary cesarean section rate (14–17).

Keywords

Obstet Gynecol Epidural Analgesia Cervical Dilatation Instrumental Delivery Forceps Delivery 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Johnson WL, Winter WW, Eng M et al: Effect of pudendal, spinal and peridural block anesthesia on the second stage of labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol 113:166–173, 1972PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Raabe N, Belfrage P: Lumbar epidural analgesia in labor: A clinical analysis. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 55:125–129, 1976PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Willdeck-Lund G, Lindmark G, Nilsson BA: Effect of segmental epidural block on the course of labour and the condition of the infant during the neonatal period. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 23:301–311, 1979PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Walton P, Reynolds F: Epidural analgesia and instrumental delivery. Anaesthesia 39:218–223, 1984PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cox SM, Bost JE, Faro S et al: Epidural anesthesia during labor and the incidence of forceps delivery. Texas Med 83:45–47, 1987Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kaminski HM, Stafl A, Aiman J: The effect of epidural analgesia on the frequency of instrumental obstetric delivery. Obstet Gynecol 69:770–773, 1987PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Shyken JM, Smeltzer JS, Baxi LV et al: A comparison of the effect of epidural, general, and no anesthesia on funic acid-base values by stage of labor and type of delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 163:802–807, 1990PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hoult IJ, MacLennan AH, Carrie LES: Lumbar epidural analgesia in labour: relation to fetal malposition and instrumental delivery. Br Med J 1:14–16, 1977PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Read MD, Hunt LP, Anderton JM et al: Epidural block and the progress and outcome of labour. J Obstet Gynaecol 4:35–39, 1983CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Diro M, Beydoun SN: Segmental epidural analgesia in labor: a matched control study. J Natl Med Assoc 78:569–573, 1985Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Thorp JA, Parisi VM, Boylan PC et al: The effect of continuous epidural analgesia on cesarean section for dystocia in nulliparous women. Am J Obstet Gynecol 161:670–675, 1989PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Friedman EA, Sachtleben MR: Caudal anesthesia: The factors that influence its effect on labor. Obstet Gynecol 13:442–450, 1959PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gal D, Choudhry R, Ung KA et al: Segmental epidural analgesia for labor and delivery. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 58:429–431, 1979PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chandler CJ, Davidson BA: The influence of lumbar epidural analgesia in labor on mode of delivery. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 20:353–356, 1982PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gribble RK, Meier PR: Effect of epidural analgesia on the primary cesarean rate. Obstet Gynecol 78:231–234, 1991PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Robson M, Boylan P, McParland P et al: Epidural analgesia need not influence the spontaneous vaginal delivery rate. Am J Obstet Gynecol 168:A240, 1993Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bailey PW, Howard FA: Epidural analgesia and forceps delivery: laying a bogey. Anaesthesia 38:282–285, 1983PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Vasicka A, Kretchmer H: Effect of conduction and inhalation anesthesia on uterine contractions. Am J Obstet Gynecol 82:600–611, 1961PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Alexander JA, Franklin RR: Effects of caudal anesthesia on uterine activity. Obstet Gynecol 27:436–441, 1966PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Craft JB, Epstein BS, Coakley CS: Effect of lidocaine with epinephrine versus lidocaine (plain) on induced labor. Anesth Analg 51:243–246, 1972PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lowensohn RI, Paul RH, Fales S et al: Intrapartum epidural anesthesia: An evaluation of effect on uterine activity. Obstet Gynaecol 44:388–393, 1974Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Matadial L, Cibils LA: The effect of epidural anesthesia on uterine activity and blood pressure. Am J Obstet Gynecol 125:846–854, 1976PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Schellenberg JC: Uterine activity during lumbar epidural analgesia with bupivacaine. Am J Obstet Gynecol 127:26–31, 1977PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Caldeyro-Barcia R, Noriega-Guerra L, Cibils LA et al: Effect of position changes on the intensity and frequency of uterine contractions during labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol 80:284–290, 1960Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Steiger RM, Nageotte MP: Effect of uterine contractility and maternal hypotension on prolonged decelerations after bupivacaine epidural anesthesia. Am J Obstet Gynecol 163:808–812, 1990PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Phillips KC, Thomas TA: Second stage of labour with or without extradural analgesia. Anaesthesia 38:972–976, 1983PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Chestnut DH, Bates JN, Choi WW: Continuous infusion epidural analgesia with lidocaine: Efficacy and influence during the second stage of labor. Obstet Gynecol 69:323–327, 1987PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Chestnut DH, Vandewalker GE, Owen CL et al: The influence of continuous bupivacaine analgesia on the second stage of labor and method of delivery in nulliparous women. Anesthesiology 66:774–780, 1987PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Chestnut DH, Laszewski LI, Pollack KL et al: Continuous epidural infusion of 0.0625% bupivacaine -0.0002% fentanyl during the second stage of labor. Anesthesiology 72:613–618, 1990PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Vertommen JD, Vandermeulen E, Van Aken H et al: The effects of the addition of sufentanil to 0.125% bupivacaine on the quality of analgesia during labor and the incidence of instrumental deliveries. Anesthesiology 74:809–814, 1991PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kong AS, Bates SJ, Rizk B: Rupture of membranes before the onset of spontaneous labour increases the likelihood of instrumental delivery. Br J Anaesth 68:252–255, 1992PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Thorp JA, Hu D, Albin R et al: The effect of intrapartum epidural analgesia on nulliparous labor: A randomized, controlled, prospective trial. Am I Obstet Gynecol 169:851–858, 1993Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    McGrath J, Chestnut D, Debruyn C: The effect of epidural bupivacaine versus intravenous nalbuphine on fetal heart rate during labor. Anesthesiology 77:A984, 1992CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Finster

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations