2015
DOI: 10.1590/1516-3180.2014.8901012
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparison of maternal and fetal outcomes among patients undergoing cesarean section under general and spinal anesthesia: a randomized clinical trial

Abstract: CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE: As the rates of cesarean births have increased, the type of cesarean anesthesia has gained importance. Here, we aimed to compare the effects of general and spinal anesthesia on maternal and fetal outcomes in term singleton cases undergoing elective cesarean section. DESIGN AND SETTING: Prospective randomized controlled clinical trial in a tertiary-level public hospital. METHODS: Our study was conducted on 100 patients who underwent cesarean section due to elective indications. The patien… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

3
41
1
6

Year Published

2017
2017
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 52 publications
(51 citation statements)
references
References 35 publications
(27 reference statements)
3
41
1
6
Order By: Relevance
“…[1][2][3] Shivering is a common and distressing side effect which is associated with increased oxygen consumption, carbon dioxide production, and metabolic rate. Shivering may also interfere with intraoperative monitoring of electrocardiogram, blood pressure (BP), and pulse oxygen saturation.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…[1][2][3] Shivering is a common and distressing side effect which is associated with increased oxygen consumption, carbon dioxide production, and metabolic rate. Shivering may also interfere with intraoperative monitoring of electrocardiogram, blood pressure (BP), and pulse oxygen saturation.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Only 3 studies were judged as low risk of bias (10,15,18). Selection bias and attrition bias were the main problems in methodology.…”
Section: Risk Of Bias In Included Studiesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We judged this item as low risk of bias in 7 studies, five of which used computer-generated random number table (5-7, 10, 13) and two of which generated sequence by drawing lots (15,18). We judged this item as unclear risk of bias in the rest eight included studies, because they did not describe detailed randomized method (8,9,11,12,14,16,17,19).…”
Section: Sequence Generation (Selection Bias)mentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations