HEALTH OF WOMAN. 2016.1(107):94–98; doi 10.15574/HW.2016.107.94 
 

Modern approaches to the provision of anesthesia cesarean section 
 

Yong-Din Kim, Semenikhin A. A., Abidov A. K.

«JSC» RSSPMC O and G, Tashkent 
 

An objective assessment of the two options regarding spinal anesthesia abdominal delivery was conducted. There were examined 89 women, who were divided into 2 groups, aged 21 to 36 years, without severe extra genital pathology. A lumbar puncture was performed no higher than L2-L3, were injected intrathecally only barbaric solutions of local anesthetics. Patients of the firstІ group were injected by intrathecal 5% lidocaine (1.2-1.4 mg/kg), in the second used 0.5% solution barbarini Logocan Heavy (0.15-0.2 mg/kg). At the stages of anesthesia and surgery was studied Central hemodynamic, a functional state of the SPA. Was evaluated the nature of postnatal early adaptation of newborns.

Neuroaxial anesthesia Logocan Heavy (hyperbaric) is a highly effective and fairly safe method of regional anesthesia that can be recommended for anesthetic management of cesarean section. The level of motor block in group I (ThIV) was higher than in the II (ThVIII), despite the same conditions of the operational position. The development of hypotension in group I, which required correction by vasopressors was in 32 (34.7%) patients, and in 15 (15.4%) patients of group II who received Logocan Heavy. A more pronounced low impact on hemodynamic, SPA was given 5% lidocaine and causing transient neurological symptoms. 
 

Key words: neuroaxial anesthesia, spinal anesthesia, cesarean section, Logocan Heavy. 
 

REFERENCES

1. Kim Yen-Din, Abramchenko VV, Kulichkin YV, Rulkw VV. 2011. Critical States in obstetrics and gynecology. Tashkent–Saint PETERSBURG.

2. Kletskin SZ. 1980. The problem of control and evaluation of operational stress, based on the analysis of the heart rhythm with the help of computers. Author. dis. Dr. med. Sciences. M.

3. Koryachkin VA, Strashnov VI. 1998. Spinal and epidural anesthesia (manual for doctors). SPB.

4. Svetlov VA, Kozlov SP. 1997. Spinal anesthesia: a step back or a step forward? Anesthesiology and intensive care 5:45-52.

5. Crowhurts IA. 2001. Obstetric anaesthesia and the compromised fetus. Minerva anestesiologia. 67;suppe:5:16–17.

6. Denny NM. 1995. Continuous spinal anaesthesia and cauda equine syndrome: letter. Anaesthesia 50:471. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2044.1995.tb06020.x

7. Eberhart LH, Morin AM, Kranke P, Geldner G, Wulf H. 2002. Transient neurologic symptoms after spinal anesthesia. A quantitative systemic overview (meta-analysis) of randomized controlled studies. Anaesthesist 51:539–546. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00101-002-0345-2; PMid:12243039

8. Rigler ML, Drasner K, Krejcie TC et al. 1991. Cauda equine syndrome after continuous spinal anesthesia. Anesth Analg 72:275–281. http://dx.doi.org/10.1213/00000539-199103000-00001; PMid:1994754

9. Vercouteren MP. 2001. Jeneral or regional anaesthesia for the obstetric critical patient. Minerva anestesiologia. 67;suppe 1:5:17.

10. Yamashita A, Matsumoto M, Matsumoto S, Itoh M, Kawai K, Sakabe T. 2003. A comparison of the neurotoxic effects on the spinal cord of tetracaine, lidocaine, bupivacaine and ropivacaine administered intrathecally in rabbits. Anesth Analg 97:512–519. http://dx.doi.org/10.1213/01.ANE.0000068885.78816.5B; PMid:12873946