BACKGROUND: Labor analgesia plays a crucial role in ensuring a comfortable and positive birthing experience. It provides physiological benefits to both the mother and the child. Knowledge, awareness, and communication between the anesthesiologist and the obstetrician are essential for the safe conduct of labor analgesia. We conducted this cross-sectional online survey amongst obstetric residents to assess their knowledge, attitude, and practices of labor analgesia.
METHODS: A structured questionnaire consisting of 19 questions was circulated amongst obstetric residents of various hospitals via electronic mode of communication. The responses were analyzed using statistical methods.
RESULTS: Among the obstetric residents that we surveyed, 75.7% of them only sometimes employed labor analgesia for their patients. The most commonly employed methods of pain relief are opioids and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID). Most of them feel that pain-free labor is necessary because it makes the whole labor process a pleasurable one. Labor analgesia was mostly advocated at patients\' request and demand. The barrier to using labor analgesia was most commonly found to be the non-availability of labor analgesia services.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite the increasing awareness of labor analgesia there still lies a gap between the attitude toward it and the practice of it. Further education to rectify the misconceptions and barriers needs to be taken for providing beneficial services to pregnant females.

BACKGROUND: Labor pain is uniquely experienced and described by the woman giving birth, and it is often considered one of the most excruciating experiences for many women. This study aimed to evaluate factors associated with the willingness to receive labor analgesia among women attending the antenatal clinic at Dr. Bogalech Gebre Memorial General Hospital Central Ethiopia in 2022.
METHODS: An institution-based, cross-sectional study was conducted from January to March 2022. Data were collected using semi-structured questionnaires by a convenience sampling technique. Data was entered in EpiData 4.2 and exported to SPSS version 20 for analysis. Both Bivariable and multivariable logistic regressions were conducted to determine factors associated with pregnant women\'s willingness to choose labor analgesia. Crude odds ratio (COR) and adjusted odds ratio (AOR) were computed to assess the association between variables.
RESULTS: A total of 398 pregnant women have participated in the study with a response rate of 94%. Nearly 30%, (29.4%) of the pregnant women had a willingness to practice labor pain management. Being a housewife (AOR: 8.35, 95% CI: 2.07, 33.63). Women who live in urban (AOR: 2.60, 95% CI: 1.29, 5.29). Having had awareness about labor analgesia (AOR: 1.70, 95% CI: 1.00, 2.60) and the short duration of labor time (AOR: 1.84, 95% CI: 1.15, 2.96) were statistically significant with a willingness to practice labor analgesia.
CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that the willingness of pregnant mothers\' toward obstetric analgesia practice was low in the study area. Being a housewife, urban residence, awareness about labor analgesia, and short duration of labor were statistically significant with the willingness of the mothers to practice labor analgesia. To increase willingness to use labor analgesia, authorities should prioritize delivering health education on pain management choices to address concerns and promote effective methods and practices.

BACKGROUND: Effective pain management during labor induction for pregnancy termination is essential. However, to date, no effective treatment has been identified. The primary aim of this study was to measure the analgesic efficacy of a sufentanil sublingual tablet system during pregnancy termination and patient satisfaction by comparing nulliparous and multiparous women. The secondary aims were to characterize the safety profile by reporting any side effects or adverse events and to determine the need for rescue therapy.
METHODS: We conducted an observational, retrospective, single-center study involving 48 women. The data retrieved for analysis included the total and hourly doses of sublingual sufentanil, evaluations of pain management satisfaction using a 5-point rating scale (ranging from 1, indicating \"not satisfied\" to 5, denoting \"completely satisfied\"), occurrence of side effects and adverse events, and the rate of rescue analgesic use. Categorical and numerical variables were compared between the two groups, and a correlation analysis was performed.
RESULTS: The median total dose of sufentanil required was 60 mcg. Nulliparous women required a higher dose of sufentanil compared with multiparous women (105 mcg vs. 45 mcg; P = 0.01). Additionally, they underwent a longer labor, indirectly measured by the time of device usage (625 min vs. 165 min; P = 0.05). Regarding satisfaction, 40 patients (83.4%) were satisfied or completely satisfied, whereas only 8 patients (16.6%) reported dissatisfaction. Multiparous women exhibited higher satisfaction levels than did nulliparous women (P = 0.03). No adverse events were reported, and the most common side effects were nausea and vomiting (31.2%). Four patients (12%) required acetaminophen due to insufficient analgesia, with only one patient necessitating a switch to intravenous morphine.
CONCLUSIONS: Sublingual sufentanil was effective in both nulliparous and multiparous women with minimal side effects. Therefore, sublingual sufentanil can be considered a valid strategy for analgesia during labor induction for pregnancy termination.

This case report describes the first known application of an epidural block for labor analgesia in a patient with Melkersson-Rosenthal syndrome (MRS), a rare disorder that may present sudden and threatening airway complications. A tailored epidural protocol effectively mitigated symptom exacerbation, facilitating a complication-free vaginal delivery. This report not only enriches the sparse literature on anesthesia in patients with MRS but also provides a crucial review of perioperative considerations for administering either general or regional anesthesia in similar cases.

Background and Objectives: Labor epidural analgesia can be maintained through programmed intermittent epidural bolus (PIEB), continuous epidural infusion (CEI), or patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA). Our department changed from CEI+PCEA to PIEB+PCEA as the maintenance method. The higher hourly dose setting in the current regimen brought to our concern that side effects would increase with proportional staff workloads. This study aimed to investigate the validity of our proposal that PIEB+PCEA may function as a feasible tool in reducing the amount of work in the obstetrics anesthesia units. Materials and methods: This 2-year retrospective review included parturients with vaginal deliveries under epidural analgesia. We compared the staff burden before and after the switch from CEI (6 mL/h, PCEA 6 mL lockout 15 min, group A) to PIEB (8 mL/h, PCEA 8 mL lockout 10 min, group B). The primary outcome was the difference of proportion of parturients requiring unscheduled visits between groups. Side effects and labor and neonatal outcomes were compared. Results: Of the 694 parturients analyzed, the proportion of those requiring unscheduled visits were significantly reduced in group B (20.8% vs. 27.7%, chi-square test, p = 0.033). The multivariate logistic regression showed that PIEB was associated with fewer unscheduled visits than CEI (OR = 0.53, 95% CI [0.36-0.80], p < 0.01). Group B exhibited a significantly lower incidence of asymmetric blockade, as well as motor blockade. In nulliparous subjects, obstetric anal sphincter injury occurred less frequently when PIEB+PCEA was used. Significantly more multiparous women experienced vacuum extraction delivery in group B than in group A, and they had a longer second stage of labor. Conclusions: The PIEB+PCEA protocol in our study reduced workloads in labor epidural analgesia as compared to CEI+PCEA, despite that a higher dose of analgesics was administered. Future studies are warranted to investigate the effect of manipulating the PIEB settings on the labor outcomes.

UNASSIGNED: Epidural nonopioid adjuvants also reduce local anesthetic use. We aimed to test the hypothesis that, compared with the present standard fentanyl, the hourly consumption of local anesthetic was at least as good when dexmedetomidine or esketamine was combined with local anesthetic for patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA).
UNASSIGNED: A total of 120 laboring nulliparous subjects requiring labor analgesia were recruited for the final statistical analysis. Subjects were randomized to receive 0.075 % ropivacaine added with one of three equivalent adjuvants: 0.4 μg/mL fentanyl, 0.4 μg/mL dexmedetomidine, or 1.0 mg/mL esketamine. The primary outcome was hourly ropivacaine consumption. Compared with the fentanyl group, a 20 % difference in hourly local anesthetic consumption between the dexmedetomidine and esketamine groups was considered a clinical difference (non-inferiority margin).
UNASSIGNED: The hourly ropivacaine consumption of the fentanyl group was 12.4 (95 % confidence interval CI 11.2 to 13.6) ml/h, so the prespecified non-inferiority limit was 2.5 ml/h. The hourly ropivacaine consumption of the fentanyl group was not inferior to that of the dexmedetomidine group (12.4 ml/h vs. 11.9 ml/h, risk difference, 0.5; 95 % confidence interval CI, -1.0 to 2.0, meeting criteria for non-inferiority). However, the hourly ropivacaine consumption of the esketamine group was 14.3 ml/h, and that of the fentanyl group was 12.4 ml/h (risk difference, 1.9, 95 % CI, 0.2 to 3.6), failing to confirm non-inferiority with a non-inferiority margin of 20 %. The incidence of pruritus was highest in the fentanyl group, whereas the occurrence of mild dizziness was highest in the esketamine group.
UNASSIGNED: In setting of the conditions of this study, epidural dexmedetomidine was non-inferior compared with epidural fentanyl in combination with ropivacaine for PCEA during labor. Meanwhile, we failed to establish the non-inferiority of epidural esketamine compared with epidural fentanyl in combination with ropivacaine for labor analgesia.

BACKGROUND: Given the advances in medicine, women with Fontan circulation are now reaching childbearing age. However, data on the mode of delivery and anesthetic management of these patients are limited. We report the cases of five pregnant women with Fontan circulation.
METHODS: The mean age at delivery was 28 ± 3 years, and the mean gestational period was 34 weeks and 3 days. Anticoagulation therapy was switched from warfarin and aspirin to continuous intravenous heparin. The modes of delivery were scheduled cesarean section (C/S) in one, emergency C/S in three, and vaginal delivery with epidural labor analgesia in one patient. Three patients underwent C/S under regional anesthesia; one received general anesthesia. The perinatal complications were heart failure, worsening valve regurgitation, and postoperative hematoma in three, four, and two patients, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: For C/S in women with Fontan circulation, regional anesthesia should be considered. Epidural labor analgesia can help prevent the decrease in pulmonary blood flow due to straining. We initiated labor analgesia or C/S with regional anesthesia at the appropriate time in four patients.

BACKGROUND: Epidural test dose for labor analgesia is controversial and varies widely in clinical practice. It is currently unclear whether using a portion of the initial dose for analgesia as the test dose delays the onset time of analgesia, compared to the traditional test dose.
METHODS: One hundred and twenty-six parturients who chose epidural analgesia during labor were randomly assigned to two groups. The first dose in group L was 3 ml 1.5% lidocaine, and in the RF group was 10 ml 0.1% ropivacaine combined with 2 μg/ml fentanyl. After 3 min of observation, both groups received 8 ml 0.1% ropivacaine combined with 2 μg/ml fentanyl. The onset time of analgesia, motor and sensory blockade level, numerical pain rating scale, patient satisfaction score, and side effects were recorded.
RESULTS: The onset time of analgesia in group RF was similar to that in group L (group RF vs group L, 7.0 [5.0-9.0] minutes vs 8.0 [5.0-11.0] minutes, p = 0.197). The incidence of foot numbness (group RF vs group L, 34.9% vs 57.1%, p = 0.020) and foot warming (group RF vs group L, 15.9% vs 47.6%, p < 0.001) in group RF was significantly lower than that in group L. There was no difference between the two groups on other outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS: Compared with 1.5% lidocaine 3 ml, 0.1% ropivacaine 10 ml combined with 2 μg/ml fentanyl as an epidural test dose did not delay the onset of labor analgesia, and the side effects were slightly reduced.
BACKGROUND: http://www.chictr.org.cn (ChiCTR2100043071).

OBJECTIVE: More literature studies have reported that alfentanil is safe and effective for labor analgesia. However, there is no unified consensus on the optimal dosage of alfentanil used for epidural analgesia. This study explored the concentration at 90% of minimum effective concentration (EC90) of alfentanil combined with 0.075% ropivacaine in patients undergoing epidural labor analgesia to infer reasonable drug compatibility and provide guidance for clinical practice.
METHODS: In this prospective, single-center, double-blind study, a total of 45 singleton term primiparas with vaginal delivery who volunteered for epidural labor analgesia were recruited. The first maternal was administered with 3 μg/mL alfentanil combined with 0.075% ropivacaine with the infusion of 10 mL of the mixture every 50 min at a background dose of 3 mL/h. In the absence of PCEA, a total of 15 mL of the mixture is injected per hour. The subsequent alfentanil concentration was determined on the block efficacy of the previous case, using an up-down sequential allocation with a bias-coin design. 30 min after epidural labor analgesia, the block of patient failed with visual analog score (VAS) > 3, the alfentanil concentration was increased in a 0.5 μg/mL gradient for the next patient, while the block was successful with VAS ≤ 3, the alfentanil concentration was remained or decreased in a gradient according to a randomized response list for the next patient. EC90 and 95% confidence interval were calculated by linear interpolation and prediction model with R statistical software.
RESULTS: In this study, the estimated EC90 of alfentanil was 3.85 μg/mL (95% confidence interval, 3.64-4.28 μg/mL).
CONCLUSIONS: When combined with ropivacaine 0.075%, the EC90 of alfentanil for epidural labor analgesia is 3.85 μg/mL in patients undergoing labor analgesia.

Background: Previous studies have explored the median effective concentration (EC50) of ropivacaine for labor epidural analgesia in parturients with obesity. However, the clinical relevance of the 90% effective concentration (EC90) remains unclear. This study aimed to determine and compare the dose-response curve of epidural ropivacaine for labor analgesia between parturients with and without obesity. Methods: Parturients were divided into two groups based on body mass index (BMI): group N, consisting of parturients with BMI <30 kg/m2, and group O, consisting of parturients with BMI >30 kg/m2. Within each group, the patients were randomized to receive one of five concentrations (0.0375%, 0.075%, 0.1125%, 0.15%, or 0.1875%) of epidural ropivacaine for labor analgesia. Analgesia was induced with a loading dose of 15 mL of the assigned concentration. Visual analogue scale (VAS) scores were recorded at baseline and 30 min post-dose to calculate the response (%) using the formula [(baseline VAS pain score-VAS pain score at 30 min)/baseline VAS pain score] ×100%. The EC50 and EC90 values were determined via nonlinear regression analysis. Results: The EC50 and EC90 values of ropivacaine were 0.061% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.056%-0.066%) and 0.177% (95% CI, 0.152%-0.206%) in group N and 0.056% (95% CI, 0.051%-0.061%) and 0.161% (95% CI, 0.138%-0.187%) in group O, respectively. No significant differences were observed in the EC50 and EC90 values between the two groups (p-values = 0.121 and 0.351, respectively. Conclusion: In conclusion, within the parameters of this study, our findings suggest that obesity, characterized by a mean BMI value of 30.9, does not significantly influence the EC50 and EC90 values of epidural ropivacaine for labor analgesia. Further investigations are warranted to elucidate the dose-response relationship between ropivacaine and obesity with higher BMI values. Clinical trial registration: https://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.html?proj=190747, Identifier ChiCTR2300073273.