Advertisement

A comparative study of the behaviour of the neonate following various forms of maternal intrapartum analgesia and anaesthesia

  • R. F. Harrison
  • R. Cullen
Article

Summary

The behaviour of 110 neonates whose mothers had been given a variety of analgesic and anaesthetic agents in labour was examined using a neonatal psychological assessment profile. This quick, easily learnt method uses aspects of Brazelton’s Neonatal Behavioural Assessment Scale (N.B.A.S.), items from the Neurological Assessment Scale of Dubowitz and Dubowitz, and measures of sucking behaviour. Scores were allotted to individual components of the profile and a total provided at the end of examination.

Analysis of means of the 15 scores showed no major differences between Pethidine + Promazine, Entonox, Epi-dural, TENS or TENS Placebo groups. Babies of mothers subjected to emergency Caesarean section however scored consistently poorer.

Keywords

Pethidine Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation Promazine Rotunda Hospital Obstetric Analgesia 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Aleksandrowicz M. K. 1974. The effect of pain relieving drugs administered during labour and delivery on the behaviour of the newborn: A review. Merril-Palmer Quarterly. 20, 2.Google Scholar
  2. Aleksandrowicz M. K. and Aleksandrowicz D. R. 1974. Obstetrical pain-relieving drugs as predictors of infant behaviour variability. Child Development 45, 935.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Apgar V. 1953. A proposal for a new method of evaluation of the newborn infant.Anesth. Analg.(Cleveland).32, 260.Google Scholar
  4. Apler M. H., Brown NL., Ostheimer G. W. and Scanlon J. W. 1975. Effects of maternal analgesia and anaesthesia on the newborn. Clinics in Obstetrics and Gynaecology..Edited by Rosen M.,Saunders.London. Vol. 2, No. 3, 661.Google Scholar
  5. Barrier G. and Sureau C. 1982. Effects of anaesthetic and analgesic drugs on labour, fetus and neonate. In: Clinics in Obstetrics and Gynaecology. Edited by Rosen M., Saunders. London. 9, 351.Google Scholar
  6. Borgstedt A. D. and Rosen M. G. 1968. Medication during labour correlated with behaviour and E.E.G. of the newborn. Am. J. Diseased Child. 115, 21.Google Scholar
  7. Brackbill,X., Kane,J., Manniello,R. L. and Abramson,D.1974. Obstetric meperidine usage and assessment of neonatal status. Anesth. Vol. 40, No. 2.Google Scholar
  8. Brackbill Y. 1982. Lasting behavioural effects of obstetric medication on children. In: In the beginnning. Edited by J. Belskey. N.Y.: Columbia Press.Google Scholar
  9. Brazelton T. B. 1973. Neonatal behaviour assessment scale. In’: Clinics in Development Medicine. No. 50. Spastics International Medical Publications London: Heineman, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
  10. Brown. W. V., Bell G. C, Lurie A. O., Weiss J. B., Scanlon J. and Apler M. H. 1975. Newborn levels of lidocaine and mepivicaine in the first post-natal day following maternal epidural anaesthesia. Amesth. 42, 698.Google Scholar
  11. Burt R. A. P. 1971. The foetal and maternal pharmacology of some of the drugs used for the relief of pain in labour. Br. J. Anaesth. 43,824.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Conway,E. and Brackbill, Y. 1970. Delivery medication and infant outcome: an empirical study. In : Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development. Vol. 35, No. 4.Google Scholar
  13. Covina B. G. 1971. Comparative clinical pharmacology of local anaesthetic agents. Anesth. 35, 158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cullen R. and Harrison R. F. 1986. Behavioural assessment of the neonate. Irish J. Med. Sci. 155, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dubowitz L. and Dubowitz V. 1981. The neurological assessment of the pre-term and full-term infant. In: Clinics in Developmental Medicine. No. 79. Spastics International Medical Publications. London, Heineman, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
  16. Harrison, R. F., Shore, M., Woods, T., Mathews, G., Gardiner, J. and Unwin, A. 1986. A comparative study of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS), entonox, pethidine + promazine and lumbar epidural for pain relief in labour. Acta. Obstet. Gynecol. Scand. (In Press).Google Scholar
  17. Kron, R. F., Stein, M. and Goddard, K. E. 1966. Newborn sucking behaviour affected by obstetric sedation. Pediatrics. Vol. 37, No. 6.Google Scholar
  18. Marcus J., Hans S. L. and Jervchimowict J. 1982. Patterns of 1-day and 4-month motor functioning in infants of women on methadone. Neurobehavioural Toxicology and Teratrology. Vol. 4, 473.Google Scholar
  19. Meffin P., Long G. J. and Thomas J. 1973. Clearance and metabolism of mepivicaine in the human neonate. Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics. 14, 218.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Moir, D. D. 1982. Pain relief in labour. 4th Edition. Churchill Livingstone.Google Scholar
  21. Scanlon J. W. 1973. How is the baby?: The apgar score revisited. Clinical Paediatrics. Vol. 12, No. 2, 61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Scanlon J. W., Brown W. V., Weiss J. B. and Apler M. H. 1974. Neurobehavioural responses of newborn infants after maternal epidural anaesthesia. Anesth. 40, 121.Google Scholar
  23. Standley K., Soule A. B., Copans S. A. and Duchowny M. S. 1974. Local regional anaesthesia during childbirth: effect on newborn behaviour. Science. 186, 634.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Tronick, E., Wise, W., Als, H., Adamson, C, Scanlon, J. and Brazelton, T. B. 1976. Regional obstetric anaesthesia and newborn behaviour: effect over the first ten days of life. Paediatrics. Vol. 58, No. 1 (July).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 1986

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. F. Harrison
    • 1
  • R. Cullen
    • 1
  1. 1.Tcd Department of Obstetrics and GynaecologyRotunda HospitalDublin 1

Personalised recommendations