COMPARISON OF SPINAL ANESTHESIA AND GENERAL ANESTHESIA FOR CAESAREAN SECTION IN THE SERVICE OF ANESTHESIA-RESUSCITATION OF THE NATIONAL IGNACE DEEN HOSPITAL

Abstract

Objective: To determine the mostadvantageousanesthetic technique between spinal anesthesia and generalanesthesia for cesarean section. Parturients and methods This was a 6-month comparative prospective studyfrom July 2016 to December 2016. This
studywasconductedat the anesthesiaresuscitationdepartment of the Ignace Deen National Hospital. Results Wecollected 128 parturientsdividedintotwo groups, 64 parturients in the spinal anesthesia group and 64 parturients in the generalanesthesia group. The meanage of the parturientswas 27 ± 5 years in the spinal anesthesia group and 26 ± 6 years in the generalanesthesia group. The ASA I class was the majority in the spinal anesthesia group whereas in the generalanesthesia group, the ASA IU class predominated. The mostcommon indication for caesarean section in both groups wasprophylacticcaesarean section. In the spinal anesthesia group, perioperativematernal complications weredominated by arterial hypotension whereas in the generalanesthesia group, these complications weredominated by hypoxemia. No maternaldeathswererecorded in both groups. The APGAR score at the first minute wasat 10 in almost all newborns in the spinal anesthesia group, whereas in the generalanesthesia group only 28 newbornshad an APGAR score of 10. As foranesthesia. 63 of the newborns had an Apgar 10/10 in the spinal anesthesia group at the first minute versus 29 in the general anesthesia group, no maternal deaths were recorded in either group. In the early neonatal mortality, there were no deaths in the spinal anesthesia group, while in the general anesthesia group 4 (6.1%) early neonatal deaths were recorded.
Conclusion: At the end of our study, it appears that spinal anesthesia has more advantages and the undesirable effects are predictable and easy to manage compared to general anesthesia.