| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
* From the Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, and the
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hadassah Hebrew University Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel.
Address correspondence to: Dr. Yehuda Ginosar, Director, Mother and Child Anesthesia Center, Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Hadassah Hebrew University Medical Center, POB 12000, Jerusalem, Israel 91120. Phone: 972-2-6777111; Fax: 972-2-6434434; E-mail: yginosar{at}netvision.net.il
Objective: Umbilical cord prolapse in a parturient is an emergency, where the need for immediate fetal delivery may conflict with maternal anesthetic risk factors. We describe the anesthetic management of a parturient who was rushed to the operating room, in the knee-chest prone position, because of cord prolapse with variable decelerations of fetal heart rate.
Clinical features: A 28-yr-old multiparous patient presented at 37 weeks gestation. Her co-morbidities included morbid obesity and asthma. She had a Mallampati class IV airway. She required emergency Cesarean delivery, in view of umbilical cord prolapse, with evidence of fetal compromise. In light of the airway concerns, the urgency to proceed with delivery, and the presence of a palpable umbilical cord pulse in this position, we performed a spinal anesthetic in the knee-chest prone position, and immediately thereafter turned the patient supine, with lateral uterine displacement. Fetal heart rate was monitored throughout the procedure. The spinal anesthetic required less than five minutes to perform, from the time of skin preparation, until readiness for surgery. The subsequent surgical and anesthetic course was unremarkable.
Conclusions: Performing spinal anesthesia in the knee-chest prone position served as an innovative solution for emergency Cesarean delivery in this case. Both the head-down lateral, and the head-down knee-chest prone positions, are compatible with spinal anesthesia, and the maternal position that achieves relief of cord compression, determined by the presence of a palpable umbilical cord pulse, may be the most important factor to determine the optimal approach to spinal anesthesia.
1 Bloom SL, Leveno KJ, Spong CY, et al. Decision-to-incision times and maternal and infant outcomes. Obstet Gynecol 2006; 108: 6–11.
2 Bythell V. Cord prolapse demands general anaesthesia. Int J Obstet Anesth 2003; 12: 287–9.[Medline]
3 Scrutton M. Cord prolapse demands general anaesthesia. Int J Obstet Anesth 2003; 12: 290–2.[Medline]
4 CESDI. Obstetric Anesthesia Delays and Complications. Confidential Enquiry into Stillbirths and Deaths in Infancy 2000 (7th annual report). London: Maternal and Child Health Research Consortium. 2000: 41–52.
5 MacKenzie IZ, Cooke I. What is a reasonable time from decision-to-delivery by caesarean section? Evidence from 415 deliveries. BJOG 2002; 109: 498–504.[Medline]
6 McCahon RA, Catling S. Time required for surgical readiness in emergency caesarean section: spinal compared with general anaesthesia. Int J Obstet Anesth 2003; 12: 178–82.[Medline]
7 Dyer RA, Els I, Farbas J, Torr GJ, Schoeman LK, James MF. Prospective, randomized trial comparing general with spinal anesthesia for cesarean delivery in preeclamptic patients with a nonreassuring fetal heart trace. Anesthesiology 2003; 99: 561–9.[Medline]
8 Boyle JJ, Katz VL. Umbilical cord prolapse in current obstetric practice. J Reprod Med 2005; 50: 303–6.[Medline]
9 Felsby S, Juelsgaard P. Combined spinal and epidural anesthesia. Anesth Analg 1995; 80: 821–6.[Medline]
10 Wolff RC, Upp CW. The prone jackknife position for the administration of spinal anesthesia: a two-year study. Anesth Analg 1963; 42: 375–8.
11 Maroof M, Khan RM, Siddique M, Tariq M. Hypobaric spinal anaesthesia with bupivacaine (0.1%) gives selective sensory block for ano-rectal surgery. Can J Anaesth 1995; 42: 691–4.
12 Laasko E, Pitkanen M, Kytta J, Rosenberg PH. Knee-chest vs horizontal side position during induction of spinal anaesthesia in patients undergoing lumbar disc surgery. Br J Anaesth 1997; 79: 609–11.
13 Inglis A, Daniel M, McGrady E. Maternal position during induction of spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section. A comparison of right lateral and sitting positions. Anaesthesia 1995; 50: 363–5.[Medline]
14 Russell R, Popat M, Richards E, Burry J. Combined spinal epidural anaesthesia for caesarean section: a randomised comparison of Oxford, lateral and sitting positions. Int J Obstet Anesth 2002; 11: 190–5.[Medline]
15 Rucklidge MW, Paech MJ, Yentis SM. A comparison of the lateral, Oxford and sitting positions for performing combined spinal-epidural anaesthesia for elective caesarean section. Anaesthesia 2005; 60: 535–40.[Medline]
16 Coppejans HC, Hendrickx E, Goossens J, Vercauteren MP. The sitting versus right lateral position during combined spinal-epidural anesthesia for cesarean delivery: block characteristics and severity of hypotension. Anesth Analg 2006; 102: 243–7.
17 Hallworth SP, Fernando R, Columb MO, Stocks GM. The effect of posture and baricity on the spread of intrathecal bupivacaine for elective cesarean delivery. Anesth Analg 2005; 100: 1159–65.
18 Richardson MG, Collins HV, Wissler RN. Intrathecal hypobaric versus hyperbaric bupivacaine with morphine for cesarean section. Anesth Analg 1998; 87: 336–40.
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
