Modern methods of regional and postoperative anesthesia during cesarean section: a literature review

Cover Page

Cite item

Full Text

Open Access Open Access
Restricted Access Access granted
Restricted Access Subscription Access

Abstract

The number of cesarean section (CS) deliveries increases annually in Russia. General anesthesia involves certain risks, including difficult or unsuccessful intubation, aspiration, and infectious and thromboembolic complications. Therefore, regional anesthesia is the method of choice for CS. To date, choosing the most effective method of regional anesthesia remains challenging, including in the postoperative period. Thus, this review aimed to compare the effectiveness of regional anesthesia methods used in CS and identify the most preferred ones for use in clinical practice. The authors conducted a literature search in the electronic databases PubMed (MEDLINE), eLibrary, and Google Scholar using the following keywords and their combinations in English and in Russian: «cesarean section», «neural morphine», «regional analgesia», «epidural analgesia», «peripheral nerve block», nerve block», «paravertebral block», «cesarean section», neuroaxial use of opioids», «regional analgesia», «epidural analgesia», «peripheral nerve blockade», «blockade», and «paravertebral blockade». The search results revealed 3 558 in the PubMed database, 94 in eLibrary, and 2 662 in Google Scholar. The results show that the neuroaxial administration of opioids remains the gold standard of pain relief after CS; however, information on the analgesic effectiveness of new blockades, such as anterior block of the quadratic lumbar muscle and block of the muscle straightening the spine, continues to accumulate.

About the authors

Mariam Z. N. Korobka

Rostov State Medical University

Email: dr.moscati@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-2347-2783

MD, department assistant

Russian Federation, Rostov-on-Don

Valeria M. Pichugina

Bashkir State Medical University

Author for correspondence.
Email: lera.pichugina.87@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0009-0004-7402-2445

MD, department assistant

Russian Federation, Ufa

Anzhelika R. Khazieva

Bashkir State Medical University

Email: santamouse2402@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0009-0009-9854-9598

medical resident

Russian Federation, Ufa

Alexandr V. Borisov

Bashkir State Medical University

Email: Borisov610@rambler.ru
ORCID iD: 0009-0006-2738-6523

medical resident

Russian Federation, Ufa

Anastasiya V. Stepanova

Georgievsky Order of the Red Banner of Labor Medical Institute

Email: anastasya_2200@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0009-0004-6332-4421

medical resident

Russian Federation, Simferopol

Diana A. Safina

Bashkir State Medical University

Email: dulatova1999@bk.ru
ORCID iD: 0009-0003-9591-6934

medical resident

Russian Federation, Ufa

Polina A. Strelnikova

Bashkir State Medical University

Email: strelnikovapolina2610@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0009-0005-9439-5852

student

Russian Federation, Ufa

Aishat A. Udagova

Pirogov Russian National State Medical University

Email: udagova79@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0009-0007-2171-7106

student

Russian Federation, Moscow

Elena A. Tarasenko

Pirogov Russian National State Medical University

Email: lera.mega98@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0009-0009-3549-8551

student

Russian Federation, Moscow

Aleksey G. Grezin

Pirogov Russian National State Medical University

Email: gag19999@yandex.ru
ORCID iD: 0009-0003-7843-778X

student

Russian Federation, Moscow

Karina R. Mukhamadiyarova

Bashkir State Medical University

Email: amelifist@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0009-0003-8033-9142

 student

Russian Federation, Ufa

Artem A. Filippov

Bashkir State Medical University

Email: glavniyack@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0009-0000-8308-3654

student

Russian Federation, Ufa

Victoria V. Krestyaninova

Bashkir State Medical University

Email: krestyaninova.97@inbox.ru
ORCID iD: 0009-0005-5150-887X

student

Russian Federation, Ufa

References

  1. Filippov OS, Pavlov KD. Results of the analysis of the frequency and causes of caesarean section based on Robson’s classification in obstetric hospitals of the Federal Medical and Biological Agency of Russia. Russian Bulletin of Obstetrician-Gynecologist. 2023;23(5):7–12. doi: 10.17116/rosakush2023230517
  2. Kulikov AV, Ovezov AM, Shifman EM. Anethesia During Cesarean Section. Russian Journal of Anaesthesiology and Reanimatology. 2018;(4):83–99. doi: 10.17116/anaesthesiology201804183
  3. Ring L, Landau R, Delgado C. The Current Role of General Anesthesia for Cesarean Delivery. Curr Anesthesiol Rep. 2021;11(1):18–27. doi: 10.1007/s40140-021-00437-6
  4. Li P, Ma X, Han S, et al. Risk factors for failure of conversion from epidural labor analgesia to cesarean section anesthesia and general anesthesia incidence: an updated meta-analysis. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2023;36(2):2278020. doi: 10.1080/14767058.2023.2278020
  5. Bayev OR, Shmakov RG, Prikhodko AM. Current cesarean section techniques in evidence-based medicine: a clinical lecture. Akusherstvo i Ginekologiya. 2013;(2):129–138. EDN: PXNSZF
  6. Riazanova OV, Shadenkov VI, Kapustin RV, Kogan IYu. Transverse abdominis plane block as a method of anesthesia after caesarean section. Messenger of Anesthesiology and Resuscitation. 2023;20(3):52–58. doi: 10.24884/2078-5658-2023-20-3-52-58
  7. Jelinek LA, Scharbach S, Kashyap S, Ferguson T. Anatomy, Abdomen and Pelvis: Anterolateral Abdominal Wall Fascia. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2023.
  8. Аdamyan LV, Аrtymuk NV, Belokrinitskaya TE, et al. Neuroxial methods of labor analgesia. Clinical guidelines. Russian Journal of Anaesthesiology and Reanimatology. 2018;(5):99–110. doi: 10.17116/anesthesiology201805199
  9. Sharipov IL, Pardaev ShK. The use of combined spinal-epidural anesthesia during simultaneous gynecological surgery. Dostizheniya nauki i obrazovaniya. 2022;86(6):45–50. (In Russ). EDN: PLMFJS
  10. Nejmark MI, Ivanova OS. Importance of neuroaxial methods of analgesia in modern obstetric practice. Medical alphabet. 2020;(13):59–63. doi: 10.33667/2078-5631-2020-13-59-63
  11. Chou R, Gordon DB, de Leon-Casasola OA, et al. Management of Postoperative Pain: A Clinical Practice Guideline From the American Pain Society, the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine, and the American Society of Anesthesiologists’ Committee on Regional Anesthesia, Executive Committee, and Administrative Council. J Pain. 2016;17(2):131–157. doi: 10.1016/j.jpain.2015.12.008. Erratum in: J Pain. 2016;17(4):508–110. Dosage error in article text.
  12. Bonnet MP, Mignon A, Mazoit JX, et al. Analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of epidural morphine compared to parenteral opioids after elective caesarean section: a systematic review. Eur J Pain. 2010;14(9):894.e1–894.e9. doi: 10.1016/j.ejpain.2010.03.003
  13. Lim Y, Jha S, Sia AT, Rawal N. Morphine for post-caesarean section analgesia: intrathecal, epidural or intravenous? Singapore Med J. 2005;46(8):392–396.
  14. Reed SE, Tan HS, Fuller ME, et al. Analgesia After Cesarean Delivery in the United States 2008-2018: A Retrospective Cohort Study. Anesth Analg. 2021;133(6):1550–1558. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000005587
  15. Medzhidova DR, Shifman EM, Ronenson AM. Mechanical bowel preparation before cesarean section. Obstetric Anesthesia Digest. 2020;33(7):10–14. doi: 10.24411/2686-8032-2020-00018
  16. Habib AS, Nedeljkovic SS, Horn JL, et al. Randomized trial of transversus abdominis plane block with liposomal bupivacaine after cesarean delivery with or without intrathecal morphine. J Clin Anesth. 2021;(75):110527. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinane.2021.110527
  17. Huang JY, Wang LZ, Chang XY, Xia F. Impact of Transversus Abdominis Plane Block With Bupivacaine or Ropivacaine Versus Intrathecal Morphine on Opioid-related Side Effects After Cesarean Delivery: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Clin J Pain. 2021;38(3):231–239. doi: 10.1097/AJP.0000000000001014
  18. El-Boghdadly K, Desai N, Halpern S, et al. Quadratus lumborum block vs. transversus abdominis plane block for caesarean delivery: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Anaesthesia. 2021;76(3):393–403. doi: 10.1111/anae.15160
  19. Yaskevich VV, Marochkov AV. Features of the development of thoracic paravertebral blockade as a component of anesthesia in radical mastectomy. Regional Anesthesia and Acute Pain Management. 2016;10(2):121–127. doi: 10.17816/RA42817
  20. Sinitsyn MN, Strokan AN. Paravertebral analgesia. Meditsina neotlozhnykh sostoyanii. 2015;64(1):169–173.
  21. Mitchell KD, Smith CT, Mechling C, et al. A review of peripheral nerve blocks for cesarean delivery analgesia. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2019:rapm-2019-100752. doi: 10.1136/rapm-2019-100752. Epub ahead of print.
  22. Hadzic A. Chapter 36: Paravertebral Block. In: Hadzic’s Peripheral Nerve Blocks and Anatomy for Ultrasound-Guided Regional Anesthesia, 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2021.
  23. Patnaik R, Chhabra A, Subramaniam R, et al. Comparison of Paravertebral Block by Anatomic Landmark Technique to Ultrasound-Guided Paravertebral Block for Breast Surgery Anesthesia: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2018;43(4):385–390. doi: 10.1097/AAP.0000000000000746
  24. Seidel R, Wree A, Schulze M. Thoracic-paravertebral blocks: comparative anatomical study with different injection techniques and volumes. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2020;45(2):102–106. doi: 10.1136/rapm-2019-100896
  25. Sharipova VKh, Fokin IV, Sattarova FK, Parpibayev FO. Erector Spinae Plane Fascial Block in Multiple Rib Fractures (Case Report). General Reanimatology. 2020;16(5):22–29. doi: 10.15360/1813-9779-2020-5-22-29
  26. Hadzic A. Chapter 37: Erector Spinae Plane Block. In: Hadzic’s Peripheral Nerve Blocks and Anatomy for Ultrasound-Guided Regional Anesthesia, 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2021.
  27. Chin KJ, El-Boghdadly K. Mechanisms of action of the erector spinae plane (ESP) block: a narrative review. Can J Anaesth. 2021;68(3):387–408. doi: 10.1007/s12630-020-01875-2
  28. Elkoundi A, Zemmouri A, Najout H, Bensghir M. Erector spinae plane block for rescue analgesia following caesarean delivery. Anaesthesiol Intensive Ther. 2021;53(3):277–278. doi: 10.5114/ait.2021.103514
  29. Ribeiro Junior IDV, Carvalho VH, Brito LGO. Erector spinae plane block for analgesia after cesarean delivery: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Braz J Anesthesiol. 2022;72(4):506–515. doi: 10.1016/j.bjane.2021.09.015
  30. Malawat A, Verma K, Jethava D, Jethava DD. Erector spinae plane block and transversus abdominis plane block for postoperative analgesia in cesarean section: A prospective randomized comparative study. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol. 2020;36(2):201–206. doi: 10.4103/joacp.JOACP_116_19
  31. Boules ML, Goda AS, Abdelhady MA, et al. Comparison of Analgesic Effect Between Erector Spinae Plane Block and Transversus Abdominis Plane Block After Elective Cesarean Section: A Prospective Randomized Single-Blind Controlled Study. J Pain Res. 2020;(13):1073–1080. doi: 10.2147/JPR.S253343
  32. Priya TK, Singla D, Talawar P, et al. Comparative efficacy of quadratus lumborum type-II and erector spinae plane block in patients undergoing caesarean section under spinal anaesthesia: a randomised controlled trial. Int J Obstet Anesth. 2023;(53):103614. doi: 10.1016/j.ijoa.2022.103614
  33. Bakshi A, Srivastawa S, Jadon A, et al. Comparison of the analgesic efficacy of ultrasound-guided transmuscular quadratus lumborum block versus thoracic erector spinae block for postoperative analgesia in caesarean section parturients under spinal anaesthesia — A randomised study. Indian J Anaesth. 2022;66(Suppl 4):S213–S219. doi: 10.4103/ija.ija_88_22
  34. Hamed MA, Yassin HM, Botros JM, Abdelhady MA. Analgesic Efficacy of Erector Spinae Plane Block Compared with Intrathecal Morphine After Elective Cesarean Section: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Study. J Pain Res. 2020;(13):597–604. doi: 10.2147/JPR.S242568
  35. Makcharin OA, Lebedeva EA, Kochubeinik NV. Regional methods of anesthesia in labor pain relief: a systematic review. Annals of Critical Care. 2022;(4):55–65. doi: 10.21320/1818-474X-2022-4-55-65
  36. Mhyre JM, Sultan P. General Anesthesia for Cesarean Delivery: Occasionally Essential but Best Avoided. Anesthesiology. 2019;130(6):864–866. doi: 10.1097/ALN.0000000000002708
  37. Elsharkawy H, El-Boghdadly K, Barrington M. Quadratus Lumborum Block: Anatomical Concepts, Mechanisms, and Techniques. Anesthesiology. 2019;130(2):322–335. doi: 10.1097/ALN.0000000000002524
  38. Long X, Yin Y, Guo W, Tang L. Ultrasound-guided quadratus lumborum block: a powerful way for reducing postoperative pain. Ann Med Surg (Lond). 2023;85(10):4947–4953. doi: 10.1097/MS9.0000000000001209
  39. Krohg A, Ullensvang K, Rosseland LA, et al. The Analgesic Effect of Ultrasound-Guided Quadratus Lumborum Block After Cesarean Delivery: A Randomized Clinical Trial. Anesth Analg. 2018;126(2):559–565. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000002648. Erratum in: Anesth Analg. 2019;128(1):e18.
  40. Mieszkowski MM, Mayzner-Zawadzka E, Tuyakov B, et al. Evaluation of the effectiveness of the Quadratus Lumborum Block type I using ropivacaine in postoperative analgesia after a cesarean section — a controlled clinical study. Ginekol Pol. 2018;89(2):89–96. doi: 10.5603/GP.a2018.0015
  41. Blanco R, Ansari T, Girgis E. Quadratus lumborum block for postoperative pain after caesarean section: A randomised controlled trial. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2015;32(11):812–818. doi: 10.1097/EJA.0000000000000299
  42. Hansen CK, Dam M, Steingrimsdottir GE, et al. Ultrasound-guided transmuscular quadratus lumborum block for elective cesarean section significantly reduces postoperative opioid consumption and prolongs time to first opioid request: a double-blind randomized trial. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2019:rapm-2019-100540. doi: 10.1136/rapm-2019-100540. Epub ahead of print.
  43. Koksal E, Aygun H, Genç C, et al. Comparison of the analgesic effects of two quadratus lumborum blocks (QLBs), QLB type II vs QLB type III, in caesarean delivery: A randomised study. Int J Clin Pract. 2021;75(10):e14513. doi: 10.1111/ijcp.14513
  44. Yetik F, Yilmaz C, Karasu D, et al. Comparison of ultrasound-guided quadratus lumborum block-2 and quadratus lumborum block-3 for postoperative pain in cesarean section: A randomized clinical trial. Medicine (Baltimore). 2022;101(49):e31844. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000031844
  45. Blanco R, Ansari T, Riad W, Shetty N. Quadratus Lumborum Block Versus Transversus Abdominis Plane Block for Postoperative Pain After Cesarean Delivery: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2016;41(6):757–762. doi: 10.1097/AAP.0000000000000495. Erratum in: Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2018;(43):111.
  46. Benedicta R, Jain MK, Dixit N, Shivappagoudar VM. The Efficacy of Ultrasound-guided Transversus Abdominis Plane Block Versus Quadratus Lumborum Block for Postoperative Analgesia in Lower-Segment Cesarean Section with Low-Dose Bupivacaine: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Anesth Essays Res. 2022;16(2):203–207. doi: 10.4103/aer.aer_84_22
  47. Khanna S, Krishna Prasad GV, Sharma VJ, et al. Quadratus lumborum block versus transversus abdominis plane block for post Caesarean analgesia: A randomized prospective controlled study. Med J Armed Forces India. 2022;78(Suppl 1):S82–S88. doi: 10.1016/j.mjafi.2020.10.009
  48. Faiz SHR, Alebouyeh MR, Derakhshan P, et al. Comparison of ultrasound-guided posterior transversus abdominis plane block and lateral transversus abdominis plane block for postoperative pain management in patients undergoing cesarean section: a randomized double-blind clinical trial study. J Pain Res. 2017;11:5–9. doi: 10.2147/JPR.S146970
  49. Borys M, Zamaro A, Horeczy B, et al. Quadratus Lumborum and Transversus Abdominis Plane Blocks and Their Impact on Acute and Chronic Pain in Patients after Cesarean Section: A Randomized Controlled Study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(7):3500. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18073500
  50. Hussain N, Brull R, Weaver T, et al. Postoperative Analgesic Effectiveness of Quadratus Lumborum Block for Cesarean Delivery under Spinal Anesthesia. Anesthesiology. 2021;134(1):72–87. doi: 10.1097/ALN.0000000000003611
  51. Tan HS, Taylor C, Weikel D, et al. Quadratus lumborum block for postoperative analgesia after cesarean delivery: A systematic review with meta-analysis and trial-sequential analysis. J Clin Anesth. 2020;(67):110003. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinane.2020.110003
  52. Salama ER. Ultrasound-guided bilateral quadratus lumborum block vs. intrathecal morphine for postoperative analgesia after cesarean section: a randomized controlled trial. Korean J Anesthesiol. 2020;73(2):121–128. doi: 10.4097/kja.d.18.00269
  53. Ryazanova OV, Aleksandrovich YuS, Gorokhova YuN, Kravtsova AA. Blockade of the transverse space of the abdomen as a component of multimodal postoperative analgesia for caesarean section. Russian Journal of Anesthesiology and Reanimatology. 2017;62(2):131–135. doi: 10.18821/0201-7563-2017-62-2-131-135
  54. Bessmertnyj AE, Antipin EE, Uvarov DN. Comparison of the effectiveness of ilioinguinal-iliohypogastric blockade and transversus abdominis plane block for analgesia after cesarean section. Russian Journal of Anesthesiology and Reanimatology. 2015;60(2):51–54.
  55. Wang P, Chen X, Chang Y, et al. Analgesic efficacy of ultrasound-guided transversus abdominis plane block after cesarean delivery: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2021;47(9):2954–2968. doi: 10.1111/jog.14881
  56. Yetneberk T, Chekol B, Teshome D. The efficacy of TAP block versus ilioinguinal block for post-cesarean section pain management: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Heliyon. 2021;7(8):e07774. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e07774
  57. Sultan P, Patel SD, Jadin S, et al. Transversus abdominis plane block compared with wound infiltration for postoperative analgesia following Cesarean delivery: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Can J Anaesth. 2020;67(12):1710–1727. doi: 10.1007/s12630-020-01818-x. Erratum in: Can J Anaesth. 2020 Oct 21.
  58. Riemma G, Schiattarella A, Cianci S, et al. Transversus abdominis plane block versus wound infiltration for post-cesarean section analgesia: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2021;153(3):383–392. doi: 10.1002/ijgo.13563
  59. Mishriky BM, George RB, Habib AS. Transversus abdominis plane block for analgesia after Cesarean delivery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Can J Anaesth. 2012;59(8):766–778. doi: 10.1007/s12630-012-9729-1
  60. Ryu C, Choi GJ, Jung YH, et al. Postoperative Analgesic Effectiveness of Peripheral Nerve Blocks in Cesarean Delivery: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis. J Pers Med. 2022;12(4):634. doi: 10.3390/jpm12040634
  61. Sholin IY, Avetisyan VA, Ezugbaia BS, et al. Assessment of rectus sheath block effectiveness after major abdominal surgery. Regional Anesthesia and Acute Pain Management. 2018;12(1):37–40. doi: 10.18821/1993-6508-2018-12-1-37-40
  62. Yörükoğlu HU, Şahin T, Öge Kula A. Transversus Abdominis Plane Block Versus Rectus Sheath Block for Postoperative Pain After Caesarean Delivery: A Randomised Controlled Trial. Turk J Anaesthesiol Reanim. 2023;51(1):43–48. doi: 10.5152/TJAR.2023.22724
  63. Garmi G, Parasol M, Zafran N, et al. Efficacy of Single Wound Infiltration With Bupivacaine and Adrenaline During Cesarean Delivery for Reduction of Postoperative Pain: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5(11):e2242203. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.42203
  64. Kainu JP, Sarvela J, Halonen P, et al. Continuous wound infusion with ropivacaine fails to provide adequate analgesia after caesarean section. Int J Obstet Anesth. 2012;21(2):119–124. doi: 10.1016/j.ijoa.2011.12.009
  65. Bolla D, Schöning A, Drack G., Hornung R. Technical aspects of the cesarean section. Gynecological Surgery. 2010;7(2):127–132. doi: 10.1007/S10397-010-0560-9/METRICS

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
Download
2. Fig. 1. Research algorithm.

Download (216KB)
Indexing metadata

Copyright (c) 2024 Eco-Vector

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
 


This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies