Extradural analgesia with clonidine and fentanyl compared with 0.25 % bupivacaine in the first stage of labour

26Citations
Citations of this article
21Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Conventional extradural analgesia during labour with 0.25-0.375% bupivacaine may induce motor weakness and subjective sensory deficit, reducing maternal satisfaction. Even in a regimen for ambulatory extradural analgesia (0.1 % bupivacaine - fentanyl 2 μg ml-1), a potential for proprioreception impairment exists, which may impair safe ambulation. We have combined fentanyl with clonidine for extradural analgesia in labour, and compared its effects with 0.25% bupivacaine, in a randomized, double-blind study. We studied 28 women requesting extradural analgesia for labour; they were allocated randomly to either group 1, who received clonidine 120 μg with fentanyl 50 μg, or group 2, who received bupivacaine 25 mg. Detailed clinical neurological examination was undertaken 30 min later. Pain was assessed subjectively using a 10-cm visual analogue scale (VAS). There were no significant differences in VAS between the groups at any time. Median onset of analgesia was longer in group 1 (24.3 (interquartile range 20-35) compared with 17.5 (15-25) min) (P < 0.05) and 79% of group 1 vs 86% of group 2 patients reported a high degree of satisfaction with extradural analgesia. Patients in group 2 had a much higher incidence of motor weakness (P < 0.01), impaired perception of pinprick (P < 0.01) and impaired distal joint proprioception (P < 0.05) than group 1. We conclude that clonidine 120 μg-fentanyl 50 μg provided comparable extradural analgesic efficacy as 0.25% bupivacaine for the first stage of labour. Furthermore, unwanted neurological effects were significantly less.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Buggy, D. J., & MacDowell, C. (1996). Extradural analgesia with clonidine and fentanyl compared with 0.25 % bupivacaine in the first stage of labour. British Journal of Anaesthesia, 76(2), 319–321. https://doi.org/10.1093/bja/76.2.319

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free