Clinical hypnosis: implications in anaesthesia and perioperative care.

A randomised trial published in the British Journal of Anaesthesia describes hypnosis compared with general anaesthesia in 60 children undergoing superficial surgery. We describe a definition of clinical hypnosis; the goals and conduct of hypnotic communication; and its potential as both an adjunct and, in suitable cases, alternative to traditional pharmacological anaesthesia.

Satisfaction measures in pediatric anesthesia and perioperative care.

Patient satisfaction is routinely used to assess the quality of care in medicine. In the field of anesthesia, research has been primarily directed toward developing satisfaction measures in adults with little attention paid to the pediatric population. Satisfaction in pediatric anesthesia and perioperative care is poorly understood. We have identified existing satisfaction measures in pediatric perioperative care and examined their similarities and differences. A search of relevant published trials up to January 2021 identified 17 studies using 14 unique satisfaction measures of perioperative care in children. Eleven of these assessed satisfaction multidimensionally while three assessed overall satisfaction of parents with their child's anesthesia. Of the six dimensions of satisfaction identified, all were duplicated to some degree across studies. The dimensions were: "staff rapport and communication" and "anesthetic and nursing quality of care" in eight satisfaction measures; "information giving" in seven measures; "postoperative symptom control" in six; "hospital experience" in five; and "involvement in decision-making" in three. The most important items from the parents' perspective were: "staff rapport and communication;" "information giving;" and "decision-making". No study examined all dimensions of satisfaction. Although all studies questioned parents, only three asked satisfaction questions of the child. No study was analyzed the child's direct responses. In three studies, parental involvement in decision-making was reported to be important as a satisfaction measure of their child's perioperative care. Of the few existing satisfaction measures evaluated, there is no accepted standard in current practice. Future studies identifying the important determinants of satisfaction in pediatric perioperative care, perhaps also using a Delphi approach with parents, might allow for the development of a patient-focused standardized measure in this setting.

Perioperative transversus abdominis plane (TAP) blocks for analgesia after abdominal surgery.

At April 2020, this review has been withdrawn. It is correct at the date of publication, and previous versions can be accessed in the 'Other versions' tab on the Cochrane Library. We are aware of new studies to potentially change the conclusions, however the update did not meet the timelines and expectations of Cochrane and the PaPaS review group.

Techniques for preventing hypotension during spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section.

BACKGROUND: Maternal hypotension is the most frequent complication of spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section. It can be associated with nausea or vomiting and may pose serious risks to the mother (unconsciousness, pulmonary aspiration) and baby (hypoxia, acidosis, neurological injury). OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of prophylactic interventions for hypotension following spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section. SEARCH METHODS: We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (9 August 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials, including full texts and abstracts, comparing interventions to prevent hypotension with placebo or alternative treatment in women having spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section. We excluded studies if hypotension was not an outcome measure. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed study quality and extracted data from eligible studies. We report 'Summary of findings' tables using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included 125 studies involving 9469 women. Interventions were to prevent maternal hypotension following spinal anaesthesia only, and we excluded any interventions considered active treatment. All the included studies reported the review's primary outcome. Across 49 comparisons, we identified three intervention groups: intravenous fluids, pharmacological interventions, and physical interventions. Authors reported no serious adverse effects with any of the interventions investigated. Most trials reported hypotension requiring intervention and Apgar score of less than 8 at five minutes as the only outcomes. None of the trials included in the comparisons we describe reported admission to neonatal intensive care unit. Crystalloid versus control (no fluids) Fewer women experienced hypotension in the crystalloid group compared with no fluids (average risk ratio (RR) 0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72 to 0.98; 370 women; 5 studies; low-quality evidence). There was no clear difference between groups in numbers of women with nausea and vomiting (average RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.01 to 3.91; 1 study; 69 women; very low-quality evidence). No baby had an Apgar score of less than 8 at five minutes in either group (60 babies, low-quality evidence). Colloid versus crystalloid Fewer women experienced hypotension in the colloid group compared with the crystalloid group (average RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.81; 2009 women; 27 studies; very low-quality evidence). There were no clear differences between groups for maternal hypertension requiring intervention (average RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.09 to 4.46, 3 studies, 327 women; very low-quality evidence), maternal bradycardia requiring intervention (average RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.78, 5 studies, 413 women; very low-quality evidence), nausea and/or vomiting (average RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.19, 14 studies, 1058 women, I² = 29%; very low-quality evidence), neonatal acidosis (average RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.15 to 4.52, 6 studies, 678 babies; very low-quality evidence), or Apgar score of less than 8 at five minutes (average RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.05, 10 studies, 730 babies; very low-quality evidence). Ephedrine versus phenylephrine There were no clear differences between ephedrine and phenylephrine groups for preventing maternal hypotension (average RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.18; 401 women; 8 studies; very low-quality evidence) or hypertension (average RR 1.72, 95% CI 0.71 to 4.16, 2 studies, 118 women, low-quality evidence). Rates of bradycardia were lower in the ephedrine group (average RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.64, 5 studies, 304 women, low-quality evidence). There was no clear difference in the number of women with nausea and/or vomiting (average RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.49, 4 studies, 204 women, I² = 37%, very low-quality evidence), or babies with neonatal acidosis (average RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.07 to 12.00, 3 studies, 175 babies, low-quality evidence). No baby had an Apgar score of less than 8 at five minutes in either group (321 babies; low-quality evidence). Ondansetron versus control Ondansetron administration was more effective than control (placebo saline) for preventing hypotension requiring treatment (average RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.83; 740 women, 8 studies, low-quality evidence), bradycardia requiring treatment (average RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.87; 740 women, 8 studies, low-quality evidence), and nausea and/or vomiting (average RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.51; 653 women, 7 studies, low-quality evidence). There was no clear difference between the groups in rates of neonatal acidosis (average RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.09; 134 babies; 2 studies, low-quality evidence) or Apgar scores of less than 8 at five minutes (284 babies, low-quality evidence). Lower limb compression versus control Lower limb compression was more effective than control for preventing hypotension (average RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.78, 11 studies, 705 women, I² = 65%, very low-quality evidence). There was no clear difference between the groups in rates of bradycardia (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.11 to 3.56, 1 study, 74 women, very low-quality evidence) or nausea and/or vomiting (average RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.27, 4 studies, 276 women, I² = 32%, very-low quality evidence). No baby had an Apgar score of less than 8 at five minutes in either group (130 babies, very low-quality evidence). Walking versus lying There was no clear difference between the groups for women with hypotension requiring treatment (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.21, 1 study, 37 women, very low-quality evidence). Many included studies reported little to no information that would allow an assessment of their risk of bias, limiting our ability to draw meaningful conclusions. GRADE assessments of the quality of evidence ranged from very low to low. We downgraded evidence for limitations in study design, imprecision, and indirectness; most studies assessed only women scheduled for elective caesarean sections. External validity also needs consideration. Readers should question the use of colloids in this context given the serious potential side effects such as allergy and renal failure associated with their administration. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: While interventions such as crystalloids, colloids, ephedrine, phenylephrine, ondansetron, or lower leg compression can reduce the incidence of hypotension, none have been shown to eliminate the need to treat maternal hypotension in some women. We cannot draw any conclusions regarding rare adverse effects associated with use of the interventions (for example colloids) due to the relatively small numbers of women studied.

Combined spinal-epidural versus spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section.

BACKGROUND: Single-shot spinal anaesthesia (SSS) and combined spinal-epidural (CSE) anaesthesia are both commonly used for caesarean section anaesthesia. Spinals offer technical simplicity and rapid onset of nerve blockade which can be associated with hypotension. CSE anaesthesia allows for more gradual onset and also prolongation of the anaesthesia through use of a catheter. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness and adverse effects of CSE anaesthesia to single-shot spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), and reference lists of retrieved studies (search date: 8 August 2019). SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered all published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving a comparison of CSE anaesthesia with single-shot spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section. We further subgrouped spinal anaesthesia as either high-dose (10 or more mg bupivacaine), or low-dose (less than 10 mg bupivacaine). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risks of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 18 trials including 1272 women, but almost all comparisons for individual outcomes involved relatively small numbers of women. Two trials did not report on this review's outcomes and therefore contribute no data towards this review. Trials were conducted in national or university hospitals in Australia (1), Croatia (1), India (1), Italy (1), Singapore (3), South Korea (4), Spain (1), Sweden (1), Turkey (2), UK (1), USA (2). The trials were at a moderate risk of bias overall.CSE versus high-dose spinal anaesthesiaThere may be little or no difference between the CSE and high-dose spinal groups for the number of women requiring a repeat regional block or general anaesthetic as a result of failure to establish adequate initial blockade (risk ratio (RR) 0.32, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.05 to 1.97; 7 studies, 341 women; low-quality evidence). We are uncertain whether having CSE or spinal makes any difference in the number of women requiring supplemental intra-operative analgesia at any time after CSE or spinal anaesthetic insertion (average RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.19 to 8.43; 7 studies, 390 women; very low-quality evidence), or the number of women requiring intra-operative conversion to general anaesthesia (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.07 to 14.95; 7 studies, 388 women; very low-quality evidence). We are also uncertain about the results for the number of women who were satisfied with anaesthesia, regardless of whether they received CSE or high-dose spinal (RR 0.93 95% CI 0.73 to 1.19; 2 studies, 72 women; very low-quality evidence). More women in the CSE group (13/21) experienced intra-operative nausea or vomiting requiring treatment than in the high-dose spinal group (6/21). There were 11 cases of post-dural puncture headache (5/56 with CSE versus 6/57 with SSS; 3 trials, 113 women) with no clear difference between groups. There was also no clear difference in intra-operative hypotension requiring treatment (46/86 with CSE versus 41/76 with SSS; 4 trials, 162 women). There were no babies with Apgar score less than seven at five minutes (4 trials, 182 babies).CSE versus low-dose spinal anaesthesiaThere may be little or no difference between the CSE and low-dose spinal groups for the number of women requiring a repeat regional block or general anaesthetic as a result of failure to establish adequate initial blockade (RR 4.81, 95% CI 0.24 to 97.90; 3 studies, 224 women; low-quality evidence). Similarly, there is probably little difference in the number of women requiring supplemental intra-operative analgesia at any time after CSE or low-dose spinal anaesthetic insertion (RR 1.75, 95% CI 0.78 to 3.92; 4 studies, 298 women; moderate-quality evidence). We are uncertain about the effect of CSE or low-dose spinal on the need for intra-operative conversion to general anaesthesia, because this was not required by any of the 222 women in the three trials (low-quality evidence). None of the studies examined whether women were satisfied with their anaesthesia.The mean time to effective anaesthesia was faster in women who received low-dose spinal compared to CSE, although it is unlikely that the magnitude of this difference is clinically meaningful (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.85 minutes, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.18 minutes; 2 studies, 160 women).CSE appeared to reduce the incidence of intra-operative hypotension requiring treatment compared with low-dose spinal (average RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.93; 4 studies, 336 women). Similar numbers of women between the CSE and low-dose spinal groups experienced intra-operative nausea or vomiting requiring treatment (3/50 with CSE versus 6/50 with SSS; 1 study, 100 women), and there were no cases of post-dural puncture headache (1 study, 138 women). No infants in either group had an Apgar score of less than seven at five minutes (1 study; 60 babies). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In this review, the number of studies and participants for most of our analyses were small and some of the included trials had design limitations. There was some suggestion that, compared to spinal anaesthesia, CSE could be associated with a reduction in the number of women with intra-operative hypotension, but an increase in intra-operative nausea and vomiting requiring treatment. One small study found that low-dose spinal resulted in a faster time to effective anaesthesia compared to CSE. However, these results are based on limited data and the difference is unlikely to be clinically meaningful. Consequently, there is currently insufficient evidence in support of one technique over the other and more evidence is needed in order to further evaluate the relative effectiveness and safety of CSE and spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section.More high-quality, sufficiently-powered studies in this area are needed. Such studies could consider using the outcomes listed in this review and should also consider reporting economic aspects of the different methods under investigation.

Epidural versus non-epidural or no analgesia for pain management in labour.

BACKGROUND: Epidural analgesia is a central nerve block technique achieved by injection of a local anaesthetic close to the nerves that transmit pain, and is widely used as a form of pain relief in labour. However, there are concerns about unintended adverse effects on the mother and infant. This is an update of an existing Cochrane Review (Epidural versus non-epidural or no analgesia in labour), last published in 2011. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of all types of epidural analgesia, including combined-spinal-epidural (CSE) on the mother and the baby, when compared with non-epidural or no pain relief during labour. SEARCH METHODS: We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov), the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (30 April 2017), and reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing all types of epidural with any form of pain relief not involving regional blockade, or no pain relief in labour. We have not included cluster-randomised or quasi-randomised trials in this update. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risks of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. We assessed selected outcomes using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: Fifty-two trials met the inclusion criteria and we have included data from 40 trials, involving over 11,000 women. Four trials included more than two arms. Thirty-four trials compared epidural with opioids, seven compared epidural with no analgesia, one trial compared epidural with acu-stimulation, one trial compared epidural with inhaled analgesia, and one trial compared epidural with continuous midwifery support and other analgesia. Risks of bias varied throughout the included studies; six out of 40 studies were at high or unclear risk of bias for every bias domain, while most studies were at high or unclear risk of detection bias. Quality of the evidence assessed using GRADE ranged from moderate to low quality.Pain intensity as measured using pain scores was lower in women with epidural analgesia when compared to women who received opioids (standardised mean difference -2.64, 95% confidence interval (CI) -4.56 to -0.73; 1133 women; studies = 5; I2 = 98%; low-quality evidence) and a higher proportion were satisfied with their pain relief, reporting it to be "excellent or very good" (average risk ratio (RR) 1.47, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.08; 1911 women; studies = 7; I2 = 97%; low-quality evidence). There was substantial statistical heterogeneity in both these outcomes. There was a substantial decrease in the need for additional pain relief in women receiving epidural analgesia compared with opioid analgesia (average RR 0.10, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.25; 5099 women; studies = 16; I2 = 73%; Tau2 = 1.89; Chi2 = 52.07 (P < 0.00001)). More women in the epidural group experienced assisted vaginal birth (RR 1.44, 95% CI 1.29 to 1.60; 9948 women; studies = 30; low-quality evidence). A post hoc subgroup analysis of trials conducted after 2005 showed that this effect is negated when trials before 2005 are excluded from this analysis (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.46). There was no difference between caesarean section rates (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.18; 10,350 women; studies = 33; moderate-quality evidence), and maternal long-term backache (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.12; 814 women; studies = 2; moderate-quality evidence). There were also no clear differences between groups for the neonatal outcomes, admission to neonatal intensive care unit (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.12; 4488 babies; studies = 8; moderate-quality evidence) and Apgar score less than seven at five minutes (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.02; 8752 babies; studies = 22; low-quality evidence). We downgraded the evidence for study design limitations, inconsistency, imprecision in effect estimates, and possible publication bias.Side effects were reported in both epidural and opioid groups. Women with epidural experienced more hypotension, motor blockade, fever, and urinary retention. They also had longer first and second stages of labour, and were more likely to have oxytocin augmentation than the women in the opioid group. Women receiving epidurals had less risk of respiratory depression requiring oxygen, and were less likely to experience nausea and vomiting than women receiving opioids. Babies born to women in the epidural group were less likely to have received naloxone. There was no clear difference between groups for postnatal depression, headache, itching, shivering, or drowsiness. Maternal morbidity and long-term neonatal outcomes were not reported.Epidural analgesia resulted in less reported pain when compared with placebo or no treatment, and with acu-stimulation. Pain intensity was not reported in the trials that compared epidural with inhaled analgesia, or continuous support. Few trials reported on serious maternal side effects. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Low-quality evidence shows that epidural analgesia may be more effective in reducing pain during labour and increasing maternal satisfaction with pain relief than non-epidural methods. Although overall there appears to be an increase in assisted vaginal birth when women have epidural analgesia, a post hoc subgroup analysis showed this effect is not seen in recent studies (after 2005), suggesting that modern approaches to epidural analgesia in labour do not affect this outcome. Epidural analgesia had no impact on the risk of caesarean section or long-term backache, and did not appear to have an immediate effect on neonatal status as determined by Apgar scores or in admissions to neonatal intensive care. Further research may be helpful to evaluate rare but potentially severe adverse effects of epidural analgesia and non-epidural analgesia on women in labour and long-term neonatal outcomes.

Techniques for preventing hypotension during spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section.

BACKGROUND: Maternal hypotension is the most frequent complication of spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section. It can be associated with nausea or vomiting and may pose serious risks to the mother (unconsciousness, pulmonary aspiration) and baby (hypoxia, acidosis, neurological injury). OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of prophylactic interventions for hypotension following spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section. SEARCH METHODS: We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (9 August 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials, including full texts and abstracts, comparing interventions to prevent hypotension with placebo or alternative treatment in women having spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section. We excluded studies if hypotension was not an outcome measure. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed study quality and extracted data from eligible studies. We report 'Summary of findings' tables using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included 126 studies involving 9565 participants. Interventions were to prevent maternal hypotension following spinal anaesthesia only, and we excluded any interventions considered active treatment. All the included studies reported the review's primary outcome. Across 49 comparisons, we identified three intervention groups: intravenous fluids, pharmacological interventions, and physical interventions. Authors reported no serious adverse effects with any of the interventions investigated. Most trials reported hypotension requiring intervention and Apgar score of less than 8 at five minutes as the only outcomes. None of the trials included in the comparisons we describe reported admission to neonatal intensive care unit. Crystalloid versus control (no fluids)Fewer women experienced hypotension in the crystalloid group compared with no fluids (average risk ratio (RR) 0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72 to 0.98; 370 women; 5 studies; low-quality evidence). There was no clear difference between groups in numbers of women with nausea and vomiting (average RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.01 to 3.91; 1 study; 69 women; very low-quality evidence). No baby had an Apgar score of less than 8 at five minutes in either group (60 babies, low-quality evidence). Colloid versus crystalloidFewer women experienced hypotension in the colloid group compared with the crystalloid group (average RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.80; 2105 women; 28 studies; very low-quality evidence). There were no clear differences between groups for maternal hypertension requiring intervention (average RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.09 to 4.46, 3 studies, 327 women;very low-quality evidence), maternal bradycardia requiring intervention (average RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.79, 6 studies, 509 women; very low-quality evidence), nausea and/or vomiting (average RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.13, 15 studies, 1154 women, I² = 37%; very low-quality evidence), neonatal acidosis (average RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.15 to 4.52, 6 studies, 678 babies; very low-quality evidence), or Apgar score of less than 8 at five minutes (average RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.05, 11 studies, 826 babies; very low-quality evidence). Ephedrine versus phenylephrineThere were no clear differences between ephedrine and phenylephrine groups for preventing maternal hypotension (average RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.18; 401 women; 8 studies; very low-quality evidence) or hypertension (average RR 1.72, 95% CI 0.71 to 4.16, 2 studies, 118 women, low-quality evidence). Rates of bradycardia were lower in the ephedrine group (average RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.64, 5 studies, 304 women, low-quality evidence). There was no clear difference in the number of women with nausea and/or vomiting (average RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.49, 4 studies, 204 women, I² = 37%, very low-quality evidence), or babies with neonatal acidosis (average RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.07 to 12.00, 3 studies, 175 babies, low-quality evidence). No baby had an Apgar score of less than 8 at five minutes in either group (321 babies; low-quality evidence). Ondansetron versus controlOndansetron administration was more effective than control (placebo saline) for preventing hypotension requiring treatment (average RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.83; 740 women, 8 studies, low-quality evidence), bradycardia requiring treatment (average RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.87; 740 women, 8 studies, low-quality evidence), and nausea and/or vomiting (average RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.51; 653 women, 7 studies, low-quality evidence). There was no clear difference between the groups in rates of neonatal acidosis (average RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.09; 134 babies; 2 studies, low-quality evidence) or Apgar scores of less than 8 at five minutes (284 babies, low-quality evidence). Lower limb compression versus controlLower limb compression was more effective than control for preventing hypotension (average RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.78, 11 studies, 705 women, I² = 65%, very low-quality evidence). There was no clear difference between the groups in rates of bradycardia (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.11 to 3.56, 1 study, 74 women, very low-quality evidence) or nausea and/or vomiting (average RR 0.42 , 95% CI 0.14 to 1.27, 4 studies, 276 women, I² = 32%, very-low quality evidence). No baby had an Apgar score of less than 8 at five minutes in either group (130 babies, very low-quality evidence). Walking versus lyingThere was no clear difference between the groups for women with hypotension requiring treatment (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.21, 1 study, 37 women, very low-quality evidence).Many included studies reported little to no information that would allow an assessment of their risk of bias, limiting our ability to draw meaningful conclusions. GRADE assessments of the quality of evidence ranged from very low to low. We downgraded evidence for limitations in study design, imprecision, and indirectness; most studies assessed only women scheduled for elective caesarean sections.External validity also needs consideration. Readers should question the use of colloids in this context given the serious potential side effects such as allergy and renal failure associated with their administration. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: While interventions such as crystalloids, colloids, ephedrine, phenylephrine, ondansetron, or lower leg compression can reduce the incidence of hypotension, none have been shown to eliminate the need to treat maternal hypotension in some women. We cannot draw any conclusions regarding rare adverse effects associated with use of the interventions (for example colloids) due to the relatively small numbers of women studied.

Prevalence and associations of psychological distress in Australian junior medical officers.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: To determine the prevalence of psychological distress in Australian junior medical officers (JMO) and investigate the determinants associated with psychological distress over a 3-year (2014-2016) period. METHODS: JMO were surveyed using the 2014-2016 JMO Census (n = 220, 399 and 466 each year; response rate approximately 15%). Levels of psychological distress were assessed using the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10). A K10 ≥ 25 was chosen to indicate high psychological distress, and this determinant was compared to various demographic and work-related factors. RESULTS: Australian JMO experience a high level of psychological distress (mean: 18.1, median 16.0). There were no differences in demographical variables, such as age, gender, marital status, dependants and between postgraduate years 1 and 2. Increasing hours worked per week was associated with a higher K10, with every hour worked increasing odds by 3%. Attitudinal items, including feeling unwilling to study medicine again, feeling poorly trained and experiences of bullying, were related to high psychological distress. Coping strategies like exercise and spending time with friends correlated positively with lower distress, while time off work, frequent alcohol use, smoking and drug use were associated with increased distress levels. Of those with a high K10, 54.5% indicated that they did not use any form of professional support; 17.83% expressed that given their time again, they would not choose to study medicine. CONCLUSION: A focused approach to JMO support and education regarding significant risk factors identified is likely to assist health policies that aim to improve the mental well-being of Australian JMO.

Hypnosis for pain management during labour and childbirth.

BACKGROUND: This review is one in a series of Cochrane reviews investigating pain management for childbirth. These reviews all contribute to an overview of systematic reviews of pain management for women in labour, and share a generic protocol. This review updates an earlier version of the review of the same title. OBJECTIVES: To examine the effectiveness and safety of hypnosis for pain management during labour and childbirth. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 September 2015) and the reference lists of primary studies and review articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTS comparing preparation for labour using hypnosis and/or use of hypnosis during labour, with or without concurrent use of pharmacological or non-pharmacological pain relief methods versus placebo, no treatment or any analgesic drug or technique. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality. Where possible we contacted study authors seeking additional information about data and methodology. MAIN RESULTS: We included nine trials randomising a total of 2954 women. The risk of bias in trials was variable, there were several well-designed large trials and some trials where little was reported about trial design. Although eight of the nine trials assessed antenatal hypnotherapy, there were considerable differences between these trials in timing and technique. One trial provided hypnotherapy during labour. In this updated review we compared hypnosis interventions with all control groups (main comparison) and also with specific control conditions: standard care (nine RCTs), supportive counselling (two RCTs) and relaxation training (two RCTs).In the main comparison, women in the hypnosis group were less likely to use pharmacological pain relief or analgesia than those in the control groups, (average risk ratio (RR) 0.73, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.94, eight studies, 2916 women; very low-quality evidence; random-effects model). There were no clear differences between women in the hypnosis group and those in the control groups for most of the other primary outcomes. There were no clear differences for sense of coping with labour (MD 0.22, 95% CI -0.14 to 0.58, one study, 420 women; low-quality evidence) or spontaneous vaginal birth (average RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.32, six studies, 2361 women; low-quality evidence; random-effects model). There were no clear differences for satisfaction with pain relief (measured on a seven-point scale two weeks postnatally) for women in the hypnosis group who also received pethidine (MD 0.41, 95% CI -0.45 to 1.27; one study, 72 women), Entonox (MD 0.19, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.57; one study, 357 women), self-hypnosis (MD 0.28, 95% CI -0.32 to 0.88; one study, 160 women), or epidural (MD -0.03, 95% CI -0.40 to 0.34; one study, 127 women), but a slight benefit in favour of hypnosis was seen for women who received water immersion (MD 0.52, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.00; one study, 174 women (all low-quality evidence). There were no clear differences for satisfaction with pain relief when it was measured as the number of women who reported they had adequate pain relief (risk ratio (RR) 1.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.94 to 1.20, one study, 264 women; low-quality evidence). It should be noted that for pharmacological pain relief and spontaneous vaginal birth, there was evidence of considerable statistical heterogeneity, which could not be fully explained by subgroup analysis.For this review's secondary outcomes, no clear differences were found between women in the hypnosis group and women in the control groups for most outcomes where data were available. There was mixed evidence regarding benefits for women in the hypnosis group compared with all control groups for pain intensity, satisfaction with childbirth experience and postnatal depression. For each of these outcomes, data from more than one trial were available for analysis but could not be combined due to differences in measurement methods. There was evidence that fewer women in the hypnosis group stayed in hospital for more than two days after the birth but this finding was based on one small study (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.83). No clear differences between women in the hypnosis group and the control groups were found for the other secondary outcomes where data were available.In the comparisons of hypnosis with specific types of control conditions: standard care, supportive counselling and relaxation training, there were no clear differences found between women in the hypnosis group and those in the standard care control groups or the relaxation control groups for the primary outcomes. Compared with the women in the supportive counselling control group, women in the hypnosis group were less likely to use pharmacological analgesia (average RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.73, two studies, 562 women). They were also more likely to have a spontaneous vaginal birth (RR 2.42, 95% CI 1.43 to 4.07), although this finding was based on the results of one small study. Overall these new comparisons displayed much less statistical heterogeneity than the comparison including all control groups. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There are still only a relatively small number of studies assessing the use of hypnosis for labour and childbirth. Hypnosis may reduce the overall use of analgesia during labour, but not epidural use. No clear differences were found between women in the hypnosis group and those in the control groups for satisfaction with pain relief, sense of coping with labour or spontaneous vaginal birth. Not enough evidence currently exists regarding satisfaction with pain relief or sense of coping with labour and we would encourage any future research to prioritise the measurement of these outcomes. The evidence for the main comparison was assessed using GRADE as being of low quality for all the primary outcomes with downgrading decisions due to concerns regarding inconsistency of the evidence, limitations in design and imprecision. Further research is needed in the form of large, well-designed randomised controlled trials to assess whether hypnosis is of value for pain management during labour and childbirth.

Non-pharmacological interventions for assisting the induction of anaesthesia in children.

BACKGROUND: Induction of general anaesthesia can be distressing for children. Non-pharmacological methods for reducing anxiety and improving co-operation may avoid the adverse effects of preoperative sedation. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of non-pharmacological interventions in assisting induction of anaesthesia in children by reducing their anxiety, distress or increasing their co-operation. SEARCH METHODS: In this updated review we searched CENTRAL (the Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 12) and searched the following databases from inception to 15 January 2013: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and Web of Science. We reran the search in August 2014. We will deal with the single study found to be of interest when we next update the review. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials of a non-pharmacological intervention implemented on the day of surgery or anaesthesia. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias in trials. MAIN RESULTS: We included 28 trials (2681 children) investigating 17 interventions of interest; all trials were conducted in high-income countries. Overall we judged the trials to be at high risk of bias. Except for parental acupuncture (graded low), all other GRADE assessments of the primary outcomes of comparisons were very low, indicating a high degree of uncertainty about the overall findings. Parental presence: In five trials (557 children), parental presence at induction of anaesthesia did not reduce child anxiety compared with not having a parent present (standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.14 to 0.20). In a further three trials (267 children) where we were unable to pool results, we found no clear differences in child anxiety, whether a parent was present or not. In a single trial, child anxiety showed no significant difference whether one or two parents were present, although parental anxiety was significantly reduced when both parents were present at the induction. Parental presence was significantly less effective than sedative premedication in reducing children's anxiety at induction in three trials with 254 children (we could not pool results). Child interventions (passive): When a video of the child's choice was played during induction, children were significantly less anxious than controls (median difference modified Yale Preoperative Anxiety Scale (mYPAS) 31.2, 95% CI 27.1 to 33.3) in a trial of 91 children. In another trial of 120 children, co-operation at induction did not differ significantly when a video fairytale was played before induction. Children exposed to low sensory stimulation were significantly less anxious than control children on introduction of the anaesthesia mask and more likely to be co-operative during induction in one trial of 70 children. Music therapy did not show a significant effect on children's anxiety in another trial of 51 children. Child interventions (mask introduction): We found no significant differences between a mask exposure intervention and control in a single trial of 103 children for child anxiety (risk ratio (RR) 0.59, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.11) although children did demonstrate significantly better co-operation in the mask exposure group (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.51). Child interventions (interactive): In a three-arm trial of 168 children, preparation with interactive computer packages (in addition to parental presence) was more effective than verbal preparation, although differences between computer and cartoon preparation were not significant, and neither was cartoon preparation when compared with verbal preparation. Children given video games before induction were significantly less anxious at induction than those in the control group (mYPAS mean difference (MD) -9.80, 95% CI -19.42 to -0.18) and also when compared with children who were sedated with midazolam (mYPAS MD -12.20, 95% CI -21.82 to -2.58) in a trial of 112 children. When compared with parental presence only, clowns or clown doctors significantly lessened children's anxiety in the operating/induction room (mYPAS MD -24.41, 95% CI -38.43 to -10.48; random-effects, I² 75%) in three trials with a total of 133 children. However, we saw no significant differences in child anxiety in the operating room between clowns/clown doctors and sedative premedication (mYPAS MD -9.67, 95% CI -21.14 to 1.80, random-effects, I² 66%; 2 trials of 93 children). In a trial of hypnotherapy versus sedative premedication in 50 children, there were no significant differences in children's anxiety at induction (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.04). Parental interventions: Children of parents having acupuncture compared with parental sham acupuncture were less anxious during induction (mYPAS MD -17, 95% CI -30.51 to -3.49) and were more co-operative (RR 1.59, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.53) in a single trial of 67 children. Two trials with 191 parents assessed the effects of parental video viewing but did not report any of the review's prespecified primary outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review shows that the presence of parents during induction of general anaesthesia does not diminish their child's anxiety. Potentially promising non-pharmacological interventions such as parental acupuncture; clowns/clown doctors; playing videos of the child's choice during induction; low sensory stimulation; and hand-held video games need further investigation in larger studies.

Preanesthetic nurse communication with children and parents--an observational study.

BACKGROUND: The impact of communication within the perioperative period is an area of increasing research interest. Suggestions are phrases or actions that can lead to subconscious nonvolitional changes in patient perception, mood, and/or behavior. Statements functioning as suggestions may induce positive or negative perceptual responses and experiences. Children and anxious patients are particularly responsive to the effects of suggestion. We aimed to identify positively and negatively worded statements used during the provision of preoperative information by nursing staff in a tertiary referral center for pediatric care. METHODS: Audio recordings of preoperative consultations between nurses, children, and their parents were made between February and May 2014. Two researchers independently reviewed the transcripts and identified positively and negatively worded suggestions. Examples of negative suggestions were, 'he is going to be sore for a week or two' or 'normal to feel a bit sick....', and a positive suggestion was 'so she will be feeling quite comfortable...'. RESULTS: There were 51 consultations transcribed and analyzed. Of the 130 suggestions independently agreed by both researchers to be either positive or negative, 40 were identified as positive (31%) and 90 negative (69%). Commonly occurring negative suggestions described: pain in 21 consultations (41%); nausea and sickness in 19 (37%); and irritability or agitation in nine (18%). Positive suggestions included a description of a return of normal activities such as eating and drinking in 14 (28%), comfort in nine (18%), and well-being in nine (18%). Twelve consultations (24%) contained only negative suggestions, while four (8%) had only positive suggestions. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first prospective observational study investigating the language used by nurses during the preoperative child-parent encounter. Suggestions for negative perceptual experiences were frequently used during the preoperative nurse consultations. Education of nurses regarding awareness and understanding of negative suggestions and their potential adverse effects is recommended.

Clonidine premedication for postoperative analgesia in children.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative pain remains a significant problem following paediatric surgery. Premedication with a suitable agent may improve its management. Clonidine is an alpha-2 adrenergic agonist which has sedative, anxiolytic and analgesic properties. It may therefore be a useful premedication for reducing postoperative pain in children. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the evidence for the effectiveness of clonidine, when given as a premedication, in reducing postoperative pain in children less than 18 years of age. We also sought evidence of any clinically significant side effects. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library (Issue 12, 2012), Ovid MEDLINE (1966 to 21 December 2012) and Ovid EMBASE (1982 to 21 December 2012), as well as reference lists of other relevant articles and online trial registers. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomized (or quasi-randomized), controlled trials comparing clonidine premedication to placebo, a higher dose of clonidine, or another agent when used for surgical or other invasive procedures in children under the age of 18 years and where pain or a surrogate (principally the need for supplementary analgesia) was reported. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently performed the database search, decided on the inclusion eligibility of publications, ascertained study quality and extracted data. They then resolved any differences between their results by discussion. The data were entered into RevMan 5 for analyses and presentation. Sensitivity analyses were performed, as appropriate, to exclude studies with a high risk of bias. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 11 trials investigating a total of 742 children in treatment arms relevant to our study question. Risks of bias in the studies were mainly low or unclear, but two studies had aspects of their methodology that had a high risk of bias. Overall, the quality of the evidence from pooled studies was low or had unclear risk of bias. Four trials compared clonidine with a placebo or no treatment, six trials compared clonidine with midazolam, and one trial compared clonidine with fentanyl. There was substantial methodological heterogeneity between trials; the dose and route of clonidine administration varied as did the patient populations, the types of surgery and the outcomes measured. It was therefore difficult to combine the outcomes of some trials for meta-analysis.When clonidine was compared to placebo, pooling studies of low or unclear risk of bias, the need for additional analgesia was reduced when clonidine premedication was given orally at 4 µg/kg (risk ratio (RR) 0.24, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.11 to 0.51). Only one small trial (15 patients per arm) compared clonidine to midazolam for the same outcome; this also found a reduction in the need for additional postoperative analgesia (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.71) when clonidine premedication was given orally at 2 or 4 µg/kg compared to oral midazolam at 0.5 mg/kg. A trial comparing oral clonidine at 4 µg/kg with intravenous fentanyl at 3 µg/kg found no statistically significant difference in the need for rescue analgesia (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.42). When clonidine 4 µg/kg was compared to clonidine 2 µg/kg, there was a statistically significant difference in the number of patients requiring additional analgesia, in favour of the higher dose, as reported by a single, higher-quality trial (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.65).The effect of clonidine on pain scores was hard to interpret due to differences in study methodology, the doses and route of drug administration, and the pain scale used. However, when given at a dose of 4 µg/kg, clonidine may have reduced analgesia requirements after surgery. There were no significant side effects of clonidine that were reported such as severe hypotension, bradycardia, or excessive sedation requiring intervention. However, several studies used atropine prophylactically with the aim of preventing such adverse effects. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There were only 11 relevant trials studying 742 children having surgery where premedication with clonidine was compared to placebo or other drug treatment. Despite heterogeneity between trials, clonidine premedication in an adequate dosage (4 µg/kg) was likely to have a beneficial effect on postoperative pain in children. Side effects were minimal, but some of the studies used atropine prophylactically with the intention of preventing bradycardia and hypotension. Further research is required to determine under what conditions clonidine premedication is most effective in providing postoperative pain relief in children.

Effects of sevoflurane versus other general anaesthesia on emergence agitation in children.

BACKGROUND: Sevoflurane is an inhaled volatile anaesthetic that is widely used in paediatric anaesthetic practice. Since its introduction, postoperative behavioural disturbance known as emergence agitation (EA) or emergence delirium (ED) has been recognized as a problem that may occur during recovery from sevoflurane anaesthesia. For the purpose of this systematic review, EA has been used to describe this clinical entity. A child with EA may be restless, may cause self-injury or may disrupt the dressing, surgical site or indwelling devices, leading to the potential for parents to be dissatisfied with their child's anaesthetic. To prevent such outcomes, the child may require pharmacological or physical restraint. Sevoflurane may be a major contributing factor in the development of EA. Therefore, an evidence-based understanding of the risk/benefit profile regarding sevoflurane compared with other general anaesthetic agents and adjuncts would facilitate its rational and optimal use. OBJECTIVES: To compare sevoflurane with other general anaesthetic (GA) agents, with or without pharmacological or non-pharmacological adjuncts, with regard to risk of EA in children during emergence from anaesthesia. The primary outcome was risk of EA; secondary outcome was agitation score. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases from the date of inception to 19 January 2013: CENTRAL, Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (EBSCOhost), Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews (EBMR) and the Web of Science, as well as the reference lists of other relevant articles and online trial registers. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomized (or quasi-randomized) controlled trials investigating children < 18 years of age presenting for general anaesthesia with or without surgical intervention. We included any study in which a sevoflurane anaesthetic was compared with any other GA, and any study in which researchers investigated adjuncts (pharmacological or non-pharmacological) to sevoflurane anaesthesia compared with no adjunct or placebo. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently searched the databases, decided on inclusion eligibility of publications, ascertained study quality and extracted data. They then resolved differences between their results by discussion. Data were entered into RevMan 5.2 for analyses and presentation. Comparisons of the risk of EA were presented as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Sevoflurane is treated as the control anaesthesia in this review. Sensitivity analyses were performed as appropriate, to exclude studies with a high risk of bias and to investigate heterogeneity. MAIN RESULTS: We included 158 studies involving 14,045 children. Interventions to prevent EA fell into two broad groups. First, alternative GA compared with sevoflurane anaesthesia (69 studies), and second, use of an adjunct with sevoflurane anaesthesia versus sevoflurane without an adjunct (100 studies). The overall risk of bias in included studies was low. The overall Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation Working Group (GRADE) assessment of the quality of the evidence was moderate to high. A wide range of EA scales were used, as were different levels of cutoff, to determine the presence or absence of EA. Some studies involved children receiving potentially inadequate or no analgesia intraoperatively during painful procedures.Halothane (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.63, 3534 participants, high quality of evidence) and propofol anaesthesia were associated with a lower risk of EA than sevoflurane anaesthesia. Propofol was effective when used throughout anaesthesia (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.51, 1098 participants, high quality of evidence) and when used only during the maintenance phase of anaesthesia after sevoflurane induction (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.76, 738 participants, high quality of evidence). No clear evidence was found of an effect on risk of EA of desflurane (RR 1.46, 95% CI 0.92 to 2.31, 408 participants, moderate quality of evidence) or isoflurane (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.23, 379 participants, moderate quality of evidence) versus sevoflurane.Compared with no adjunct, effective adjuncts for reducing the risk of EA during sevoflurane anaesthesia included dexmedetomidine (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.47, 851 participants, high quality of evidence), clonidine (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.66, 739 participants, high quality of evidence), opioids, in particular fentanyl (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.50, 1247 participants, high quality of evidence) and a bolus of propofol (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.89, 394 participants, moderate quality of evidence), ketamine (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.69, 231 participants, moderate quality of evidence) or midazolam (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.81, 116 participants, moderate quality of evidence) at the end of anaesthesia. Midazolam oral premedication (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.12, 370 participants, moderate quality of evidence) and parental presence at emergence (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.60, 180 participants, moderate quality of evidence) did not reduce the risk of EA.One or more factors designated as high risk of bias were noted in less than 10% of the included studies. Sensitivity analyses of these studies showed no clinically relevant changes in the risk of EA. Heterogeneity was significant with respect to these comparisons: halothane; clonidine; fentanyl; midazolam premedication; propofol 1 mg/kg bolus at end; and ketamine 0.25 mg/kg bolus at end of anaesthesia. With investigation of heterogeneity, the only clinically relevant changes to findings were seen in the context of potential pain, namely, the setting of adenoidectomy/adenotonsillectomy (propofol bolus; midazolam premedication) and the absence of a regional block (clonidine). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Propofol, halothane, alpha-2 agonists (dexmedetomidine, clonidine), opioids (e.g. fentanyl) and ketamine reduce the risk of EA compared with sevoflurane anaesthesia, whereas no clear evidence shows an effect for desflurane, isoflurane, midazolam premedication and parental presence at emergence. Therefore anaesthetists can consider several effective strategies to reduce the risk of EA in their clinical practice. Future studies should ensure adequate analgesia in the control group, for which pain may be a contributing or confounding factor in the diagnosis of EA. Regardless of the EA scale used, it would be helpful for study authors to report the risk of EA, so that this might be included in future meta-analyses. Researchers should also consider combining effective interventions as a multi-modal approach to further reduce the risk of EA.

Hypnosis for pain management during labour and childbirth.

BACKGROUND: This review is one in a series of Cochrane Reviews investigating pain management for childbirth. These reviews all contribute to an overview of systematic reviews of pain management for women in labour, and share a generic protocol. We examined the current evidence regarding the use of hypnosis for pain management during labour and childbirth. This review updates the findings regarding hypnosis from an earlier review of complementary and alternative therapies for pain management in labour into a stand-alone review. OBJECTIVES: To examine the effectiveness and safety of hypnosis for pain management during labour and childbirth. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (11 January 2012) and the reference lists of primary studies and review articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing preparation for labour using hypnosis and/or use of hypnosis during labour, with or without concurrent use of pharmacological or non-pharmacological pain relief methods versus placebo, no treatment or any analgesic drug or technique. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two assessors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality. Where possible we contacted study authors seeking additional information about data and methodology. MAIN RESULTS: We included seven trials randomising a total of 1213 women. All but one of the trials were at moderate to high risk of bias. Although six of the seven trials assessed antenatal hypnotherapy, there were considerable differences between these trials in timing and technique. One trial provided hypnotherapy during labour. No significant differences between women in the hypnosis group and those in the control group were found for the primary outcomes: use of pharmacological pain relief (average risk ratio (RR) 0.63, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.39 to 1.01, six studies, 1032 women), spontaneous vaginal birth (average RR 1.35, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.96, four studies, 472 women) or satisfaction with pain relief (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.20, one study, 264 women). There was significant statistical heterogeneity in the data for use of pharmacological pain relief and spontaneous vaginal birth. The primary outcome of sense of coping with labour was reported in two studies as showing no beneficial effect (no usable data available for this review).  For secondary outcomes, no significant differences were identified between women in the hypnosis group and women in the control group for most outcomes where data were available. For example, there was no significant difference for satisfaction with the childbirth experience (average RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.52 to 3.59, two studies, 370 women), admissions to the neonatal intensive care unit (average RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.12 to 2.89, two studies, 347 women) or breastfeeding at discharge from hospital (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.03, one study, 304 women). There was some evidence of benefits for women in the hypnosis group compared with the control group for pain intensity, length of labour and maternal hospital stay, although these findings were based on single studies with small numbers of women. Pain intensity was found to be lower for women in the hypnosis group than those in the control group in one trial of 60 women (mean difference (MD) -0.70, 95% CI -1.03 to -0.37). The same study found that the average length of labour from 5 cm dilation to birth (minutes) was significantly shorter for women in the hypnosis group (mean difference -165.20, 95% CI -223.53 to -106.87, one study, 60 women). Another study found that a smaller proportion of women in the hypnosis group stayed in hospital for more than two days after the birth compared with women in the control group (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.83, one study, 42 women). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There are still only a small number of studies assessing the use of hypnosis for labour and childbirth. Although the intervention shows some promise, further research is needed before recommendations can be made regarding its clinical usefulness for pain management in maternity care.

Combined spinal-epidural versus epidural analgesia in labour.

BACKGROUND: Traditional epidural techniques have been associated with prolonged labour, use of oxytocin augmentation and increased incidence of instrumental vaginal delivery. The combined spinal-epidural (CSE) technique has been introduced in an attempt to reduce these adverse effects. CSE is believed to improve maternal mobility during labour and provide more rapid onset of analgesia than epidural analgesia, which could contribute to increased maternal satisfaction. OBJECTIVES: To assess the relative effects of CSE versus epidural analgesia during labour. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (28 September 2011) and reference lists of retrieved studies. We updated the search on 30 June 2012 and added the results to the awaiting classification section. SELECTION CRITERIA: All published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving a comparison of CSE with epidural analgesia initiated for women in the first stage of labour. Cluster-randomised trials were considered for inclusion. Quasi RCTs and cross-over trials were not considered for inclusion in this review. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors independently assessed the trials identified from the searches for inclusion, assessed trial quality and extracted the data. Data were checked for accuracy. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-seven trials involving 3274 women met our inclusion criteria. Twenty-six outcomes in two sets of comparisons involving CSE versus traditional epidurals and CSE versus low-dose epidural techniques were analysed.Of the CSE versus traditional epidural analyses five outcomes showed a significant difference. CSE was more favourable in relation to speed of onset of analgesia from time of injection (mean difference (MD) -2.87 minutes; 95% confidence interval (CI) -5.07 to -0.67; two trials, 129 women); the need for rescue analgesia (risk ratio (RR) 0.31; 95% CI 0.14 to 0.70; one trial, 42 women); urinary retention (RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.79 to 0.95; one trial, 704 women); and rate of instrumental delivery (RR 0.81; 95% CI 0.67 to 0.97; six trials, 1015 women). Traditional epidural was more favourable in relation to umbilical venous pH (MD -0.03; 95% CI -0.06 to -0.00; one trial, 55 women). There were no data on maternal satisfaction, blood patch for post dural puncture headache, respiratory depression, umbilical cord pH, rare neurological complications, analgesia for caesarean section after analgesic intervention or any economic/use of resources outcomes for this comparison. No differences between CSE and traditional epidural were identified for mobilisation in labour, the need for labour augmentation, the rate of caesarean birth, incidence of post dural puncture headache, maternal hypotension, neonatal Apgar scores or umbilical arterial pH.For CSE versus low-dose epidurals, three outcomes were statistically significant. Two of these reflected a faster onset of effective analgesia from time of injection with CSE and the third was of more pruritus with CSE compared to low-dose epidural (average RR 1.80; 95% CI 1.22 to 2.65; 11 trials, 959 women; random-effects, T² = 0.26, I² = 84%). There was no significant difference in maternal satisfaction (average RR 1.01; 95% CI 0.98 to 1.05; seven trials, 520 women; random-effects, T² = 0.00, I² = 45%). There were no data on respiratory depression, maternal sedation or the need for labour augmentation. No differences between CSE and low-dose epidural were identified for need for rescue analgesia, mobilisation in labour, incidence of post dural puncture headache, known dural tap, blood patch for post dural headache, urinary retention, nausea/vomiting, hypotension, headache, the need for labour augmentation, mode of delivery, umbilical pH, Apgar score or admissions to the neonatal unit. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There appears to be little basis for offering CSE over epidurals in labour, with no difference in overall maternal satisfaction despite a slightly faster onset with CSE and conversely less pruritus with low-dose epidurals. There was no difference in ability to mobilise, maternal hypotension, rate of caesarean birth or neonatal outcome. However, the significantly higher incidence of urinary retention, rescue interventions and instrumental deliveries with traditional techniques would favour the use of low-dose epidurals. It is not possible to draw any meaningful conclusions regarding rare complications such as nerve injury and meningitis.

Consent for pediatric anesthesia: an observational study.

BACKGROUND: Informed consent prior to anesthesia is an important part of the pediatric pre-anesthetic consultation. This study aimed to observe and identify the number and nature of the anesthesia risks considered and communicated to parents/guardians and children during the pediatric informed consent process on the day of elective surgery. METHODS: A convenience sample of anesthetists had their pre-anesthesia consultations voice recorded, prior to elective surgery, during a 4-month period at the largest tertiary referral centre for pediatric care in South Australia. A data collection form was used to note baseline demographic data, and voice recording transcripts were independently documented by two researchers and subsequently compared for accuracy regarding the number and nature of risks discussed. RESULTS: Of the 96 voice recordings, 91 (92%) were suitable for the analysis. The five most commonly discussed risks were as follows: nausea and vomiting (36%); sore throat (35%); allergy (29%); hypoxia (25%); and emergence delirium (19%). Twenty-seven pre-anesthetic consultations (30%) were found to have had no discussion of anesthetic risk at all while a further 23 consultations (26%) incorporated general statements inferring that anesthesia carried risks, but with no elaboration about their nature, ramifications or incidence. The median number of risks (IQR) specifically mentioned per consultation was higher, 3 (1) vs 1 (1), P < 0.05, when the consultation was performed by a trainee rather than a consultant anesthetist and when the patient had previous anesthesia experience odds ratio 0.34, 95% CI [0.13, 0.87], P = 0.025. CONCLUSIONS: The pediatric anesthesia risk discussion is very variable. Trainees tend to discuss more specific risks than consultants and a patient's previous experience of anesthesia was associated with a more limited discussion of anesthesia risk.

Suggestions in Hypnosis to Aid Pain Education (SHAPE) in People with Chronic Low-Back Pain: A Pilot Feasibility Randomized, Controlled Trial.

Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is a debilitating and burdensome condition, and new treatment strategies are needed. This study aimed to evaluate (1) the feasibility of undertaking a controlled clinical trial investigating a novel intervention for people with CLBP: hypnotically reinforced pain science education, and (2) the acceptability of the intervention as rated by participants. A priori feasibility and intervention acceptability criteria were set. Twenty participants with CLBP were recruited and randomized to receive: (1) hypnotically delivered pain science education that utilizes hypnotic suggestions to enhance uptake of pain science concepts; or (2) pain science education with progressive muscle relaxation as an attention control. Twenty participants were recruited, however, not solely from the hospital waitlist as intended; community sampling was required (13 hospital, 7 community). Most criteria were met in the community sample but not the hospital sample. Protocol modifications are needed before progressing to a full scale randomized controlled trial for hypnotically reinforced pain science education. Improvements in relevant secondary outcomes paired with moderate-high treatment acceptability ratings are promising.

Rapid hypnosis as an anaesthesia adjunct for evacuation of postpartum vulval haematoma.

Hypnosis can be a useful therapeutic adjunct to pharmacological analgesia or anaesthesia in obstetrics. However, it is rarely considered a primary anaesthetic technique and is seldom employed in the acute surgical setting. Few obstetricians and anaesthetists currently utilise this technique in their clinical practice. We present a case report of a 34-year-old woman who successfully underwent evacuation of a large vulval haematoma using the simple hypnosis technique of 'believed-in imagination' as the principal anaesthetic technique with only minimal adjunctive pharmacological analgesia.

Invasive placebos in research on peripheral nerve blocks: a follow-up study.

INTRODUCTION: The Serious Harm and Morbidity "SHAM" grading system has previously been proposed to categorize the risks associated with the use of invasive placebos in peripheral nerve block research. SHAM grades range from 0 (no potential complications, eg, using standard analgesia techniques as a comparator) through to 4 (risk of major complications, eg, performing a sub-Tenon's block and injecting normal saline). A study in 2011 found that 52% of studies of peripheral nerve blocks had SHAM grades of 3 or more. METHODS: We repeated the original study by allocating SHAM grades to randomized controlled studies of peripheral nerve blocks published in English over a 22-month period. Documentation was made of the number of study participants, age, number of controls, body region, adverse events due to invasive placebos and any discussion regarding the ethics of using invasive placebos. We compared the proportion of studies with SHAM grades of 3 or more with the original study. RESULTS: In this current study, 114 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria, 5 pediatric and 109 adult. The SHAM grade was ≥3 in 38 studies (33.3%), with 1494 patients in these control groups collectively. Several studies discussed their reasons for choosing a non-invasive placebo. No pediatric studies had a SHAM grade of ≥3. CONCLUSIONS: The use of invasive placebos that may be associated with serious risks in peripheral nerve block research has decreased in contemporary peripheral nerve block research.