RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Despite the requirement for meticulous management of cesarean anesthesia, no study has explored the impact of novice trainee anesthesiologists in this field. This study assessed challenges in neuraxial anesthesia for cesarean sections and compared outcomes between novice and senior anesthesiologists. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 446 cesarean sections with neuraxial anesthesia. The primary objective was to evaluate the impact of anesthesiologists' experience on the time required to administer neuraxial anesthesia and whether maternal body mass index (BMI) influenced this relationship. Secondary objectives included examining maternal hemodynamic variability, operative details, and newborn outcomes relative to the anesthesiologist's experience. RESULTS: Novice anesthesiologists required a significantly longer time to perform neuraxial anesthesia (24.9 [7.1] min vs. 18.2 [7.0] min, P<0.001) than their senior counterparts. A significant interaction was observed between anesthesiologist experience and maternal BMI on the time to administer neuraxial anesthesia (P=0.017), with a moderate correlation between BMI and administration time for novices (r=0.50, P<0.001) and only a slight correlation for seniors (r=0.17, P=0.001). Experience level did not significantly affect intraoperative hemodynamics, Apgar scores, or umbilical cord blood gas analyses. CONCLUSIONS: The effect of maternal BMI on the difficulty of performing neuraxial anesthesia in parturients can be more pronounced for novice anesthesiologists than for experienced ones. Despite requiring more time to perform neuraxial anesthesia, novice anesthesiologists do not significantly affect maternal hemodynamics or newborn distress during obstetric anesthesia, provided that they are under the supervision of experienced anesthesiologists.
RESUMEN
PURPOSE: This study retrospectively assessed blood loss during cesarean deliveries for twin and singleton pregnancies using two distinct methods, quantitative estimation measured during cesarean sections and hematocrit-based calculated estimation. METHODS: We included scheduled cesarean deliveries for twin or singleton pregnancies at ≥ 34 weeks of gestation. Quantitative blood loss was recorded based on the blood volume in the graduated collector bottle and by weighing the blood-soaked textiles during cesarean sections. The blood loss was calculated using the change in hematocrit levels before and after the cesarean delivery. RESULTS: We evaluated 403 cases including 44 twins and 359 singletons. Quantitative blood loss during cesarean section was significantly higher in twin pregnancies than that in singleton pregnancies (1117 [440] vs 698 [378] mL; p < 0.001). However, no significant differences were observed in the calculated blood loss between the two groups on the day after delivery (487 mL [692 mL] vs 507 mL [522 mL]; p = 0.861). On post-delivery days 4-5, twin pregnancies were associated with a significantly higher calculated blood loss than singleton pregnancies (725 [868] mL vs 444 [565] mL, p = 0.041). Although a significant moderate correlation between quantitative and calculated blood loss was observed in singleton pregnancies (r = 0.473, p < 0.001), no significant correlation was observed between twin pregnancies (r = 0.053, p = 0.735). CONCLUSION: Quantitative blood loss measurements during cesarean section may be clinically insufficient in twin pregnancies. Incorporating blood tests and continuous assessments are warranted for enhanced blood loss evaluation, especially in twin pregnancies, owing to the risk of persistent bleeding.