Effectiveness of acupuncture versus spinal-epidural anesthesia on labor pain: a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of acupuncture analgesia(AA) compared with combined spinal-epidural anesthesia(CSEA) for labor pain relief and labor outcomes.METHODS: We evaluated 131 primiparous women who received respiratory guidance during maternal uterine contractions and received eithe...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of traditional Chinese medicine = Chung i tsa chih ying wen pan 2017-10, Vol.37 (5), p.629-635
Hauptverfasser: Wu, Lingling, Yin, Yuzhu, Sun, Ke, Wu, Ling, Hou, Hongying, Liu, Xiaohui, Yi, Wei, Li, Shangrong
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 635
container_issue 5
container_start_page 629
container_title Journal of traditional Chinese medicine = Chung i tsa chih ying wen pan
container_volume 37
creator Wu, Lingling
Yin, Yuzhu
Sun, Ke
Wu, Ling
Hou, Hongying
Liu, Xiaohui
Yi, Wei
Li, Shangrong
description OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of acupuncture analgesia(AA) compared with combined spinal-epidural anesthesia(CSEA) for labor pain relief and labor outcomes.METHODS: We evaluated 131 primiparous women who received respiratory guidance during maternal uterine contractions and received either AA(n =43), CSEA(n = 45), or no additional treatment(control, n = 43). The groups were compared regarding visual analog scale(VAS) scores for abdominal and back pain, and labor outcomes.RESULTS: The abdominal VAS scores of the AA and CSEA groups were significantly lower than that of the control group. In addition, the VAS scores of the CSEA group were significantly lower than that of the AA group at 10 and 60 min after intervention.The back pain VAS scores of the AA and CSEA groups were significantly lower than that of the control group at 5, 10, and 60 min after intervention. The duration of the active phase of labor in the CSEA group was significantly longer than that of the AA and control groups. The rates of oxytocin use(4.70%), urinary retention(4.70%), and postpartum hemorrhage [(273.7 ± 53.6) m L] in the AA group were significantly lower than in the CSEA group [46.70%, 24.20%, and(320.0 ± 85.6) m L, respectively].CONCLUSION: Both AA and CSEA were effective for labor pain relief, CSEA provided more effective pain relief, while AA was associated with a shorter duration of labor and fewer adverse effects.and each has its advantages and disadvantages.
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>pubmed_chong</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_chongqing_primary_673787259</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><cqvip_id>673787259</cqvip_id><sourcerecordid>32188223</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c205t-ca24430b6d44bd2b93fe23c24cff194cbb96332c2a9649e4553fa4f72f6e0a273</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNo9z09KAzEYBfAgiq3VK0hwPzD9ksxMllLqHyi4UXBXvmSSNpJJxmSmoEfxLN7JK7RQdfXe4seDd0KmIBpZcDF_PSXTEoQoQAJMyEXOb2UpGiGaczJhMG8aADYl3dJaowe3M8HkTKOlqMd-DHoYk6E7k_KYae5dQF-Y3rVjQk_xYIetyQ5pDNSjion26MLP9xdFmjC0sXOfpqU6hiFF7w91SA79JTmz6LO5-s0ZeblbPi8eitXT_ePidlVoKMVQaATOWamqlnPVgpLMGmAauLZ2LrlWSlaMgQaUFZeGC8EscluDrUyJULMZuT7u9qPqTLvuk-swfaz_fh_AzRHobQybdxc2_6aqWd3UICTbA_4gZKg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Index Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>Effectiveness of acupuncture versus spinal-epidural anesthesia on labor pain: a randomized controlled trial</title><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Wu, Lingling ; Yin, Yuzhu ; Sun, Ke ; Wu, Ling ; Hou, Hongying ; Liu, Xiaohui ; Yi, Wei ; Li, Shangrong</creator><creatorcontrib>Wu, Lingling ; Yin, Yuzhu ; Sun, Ke ; Wu, Ling ; Hou, Hongying ; Liu, Xiaohui ; Yi, Wei ; Li, Shangrong</creatorcontrib><description>OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of acupuncture analgesia(AA) compared with combined spinal-epidural anesthesia(CSEA) for labor pain relief and labor outcomes.METHODS: We evaluated 131 primiparous women who received respiratory guidance during maternal uterine contractions and received either AA(n =43), CSEA(n = 45), or no additional treatment(control, n = 43). The groups were compared regarding visual analog scale(VAS) scores for abdominal and back pain, and labor outcomes.RESULTS: The abdominal VAS scores of the AA and CSEA groups were significantly lower than that of the control group. In addition, the VAS scores of the CSEA group were significantly lower than that of the AA group at 10 and 60 min after intervention.The back pain VAS scores of the AA and CSEA groups were significantly lower than that of the control group at 5, 10, and 60 min after intervention. The duration of the active phase of labor in the CSEA group was significantly longer than that of the AA and control groups. The rates of oxytocin use(4.70%), urinary retention(4.70%), and postpartum hemorrhage [(273.7 ± 53.6) m L] in the AA group were significantly lower than in the CSEA group [46.70%, 24.20%, and(320.0 ± 85.6) m L, respectively].CONCLUSION: Both AA and CSEA were effective for labor pain relief, CSEA provided more effective pain relief, while AA was associated with a shorter duration of labor and fewer adverse effects.and each has its advantages and disadvantages.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0255-2922</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2589-451X</identifier><identifier>PMID: 32188223</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>China</publisher><ispartof>Journal of traditional Chinese medicine = Chung i tsa chih ying wen pan, 2017-10, Vol.37 (5), p.629-635</ispartof><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Uhttp://image.cqvip.com/vip1000/qk/86801X/86801X.jpg</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32188223$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Wu, Lingling</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yin, Yuzhu</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sun, Ke</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wu, Ling</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hou, Hongying</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Liu, Xiaohui</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yi, Wei</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Li, Shangrong</creatorcontrib><title>Effectiveness of acupuncture versus spinal-epidural anesthesia on labor pain: a randomized controlled trial</title><title>Journal of traditional Chinese medicine = Chung i tsa chih ying wen pan</title><addtitle>Journal of Traditional Chinese Medicine</addtitle><description>OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of acupuncture analgesia(AA) compared with combined spinal-epidural anesthesia(CSEA) for labor pain relief and labor outcomes.METHODS: We evaluated 131 primiparous women who received respiratory guidance during maternal uterine contractions and received either AA(n =43), CSEA(n = 45), or no additional treatment(control, n = 43). The groups were compared regarding visual analog scale(VAS) scores for abdominal and back pain, and labor outcomes.RESULTS: The abdominal VAS scores of the AA and CSEA groups were significantly lower than that of the control group. In addition, the VAS scores of the CSEA group were significantly lower than that of the AA group at 10 and 60 min after intervention.The back pain VAS scores of the AA and CSEA groups were significantly lower than that of the control group at 5, 10, and 60 min after intervention. The duration of the active phase of labor in the CSEA group was significantly longer than that of the AA and control groups. The rates of oxytocin use(4.70%), urinary retention(4.70%), and postpartum hemorrhage [(273.7 ± 53.6) m L] in the AA group were significantly lower than in the CSEA group [46.70%, 24.20%, and(320.0 ± 85.6) m L, respectively].CONCLUSION: Both AA and CSEA were effective for labor pain relief, CSEA provided more effective pain relief, while AA was associated with a shorter duration of labor and fewer adverse effects.and each has its advantages and disadvantages.</description><issn>0255-2922</issn><issn>2589-451X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNo9z09KAzEYBfAgiq3VK0hwPzD9ksxMllLqHyi4UXBXvmSSNpJJxmSmoEfxLN7JK7RQdfXe4seDd0KmIBpZcDF_PSXTEoQoQAJMyEXOb2UpGiGaczJhMG8aADYl3dJaowe3M8HkTKOlqMd-DHoYk6E7k_KYae5dQF-Y3rVjQk_xYIetyQ5pDNSjion26MLP9xdFmjC0sXOfpqU6hiFF7w91SA79JTmz6LO5-s0ZeblbPi8eitXT_ePidlVoKMVQaATOWamqlnPVgpLMGmAauLZ2LrlWSlaMgQaUFZeGC8EscluDrUyJULMZuT7u9qPqTLvuk-swfaz_fh_AzRHobQybdxc2_6aqWd3UICTbA_4gZKg</recordid><startdate>20171001</startdate><enddate>20171001</enddate><creator>Wu, Lingling</creator><creator>Yin, Yuzhu</creator><creator>Sun, Ke</creator><creator>Wu, Ling</creator><creator>Hou, Hongying</creator><creator>Liu, Xiaohui</creator><creator>Yi, Wei</creator><creator>Li, Shangrong</creator><scope>2RA</scope><scope>92L</scope><scope>CQIGP</scope><scope>W91</scope><scope>~WA</scope><scope>NPM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20171001</creationdate><title>Effectiveness of acupuncture versus spinal-epidural anesthesia on labor pain: a randomized controlled trial</title><author>Wu, Lingling ; Yin, Yuzhu ; Sun, Ke ; Wu, Ling ; Hou, Hongying ; Liu, Xiaohui ; Yi, Wei ; Li, Shangrong</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c205t-ca24430b6d44bd2b93fe23c24cff194cbb96332c2a9649e4553fa4f72f6e0a273</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Wu, Lingling</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yin, Yuzhu</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sun, Ke</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wu, Ling</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hou, Hongying</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Liu, Xiaohui</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yi, Wei</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Li, Shangrong</creatorcontrib><collection>中文科技期刊数据库</collection><collection>中文科技期刊数据库-CALIS站点</collection><collection>中文科技期刊数据库-7.0平台</collection><collection>中文科技期刊数据库-医药卫生</collection><collection>中文科技期刊数据库- 镜像站点</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><jtitle>Journal of traditional Chinese medicine = Chung i tsa chih ying wen pan</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Wu, Lingling</au><au>Yin, Yuzhu</au><au>Sun, Ke</au><au>Wu, Ling</au><au>Hou, Hongying</au><au>Liu, Xiaohui</au><au>Yi, Wei</au><au>Li, Shangrong</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Effectiveness of acupuncture versus spinal-epidural anesthesia on labor pain: a randomized controlled trial</atitle><jtitle>Journal of traditional Chinese medicine = Chung i tsa chih ying wen pan</jtitle><addtitle>Journal of Traditional Chinese Medicine</addtitle><date>2017-10-01</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>37</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>629</spage><epage>635</epage><pages>629-635</pages><issn>0255-2922</issn><eissn>2589-451X</eissn><abstract>OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of acupuncture analgesia(AA) compared with combined spinal-epidural anesthesia(CSEA) for labor pain relief and labor outcomes.METHODS: We evaluated 131 primiparous women who received respiratory guidance during maternal uterine contractions and received either AA(n =43), CSEA(n = 45), or no additional treatment(control, n = 43). The groups were compared regarding visual analog scale(VAS) scores for abdominal and back pain, and labor outcomes.RESULTS: The abdominal VAS scores of the AA and CSEA groups were significantly lower than that of the control group. In addition, the VAS scores of the CSEA group were significantly lower than that of the AA group at 10 and 60 min after intervention.The back pain VAS scores of the AA and CSEA groups were significantly lower than that of the control group at 5, 10, and 60 min after intervention. The duration of the active phase of labor in the CSEA group was significantly longer than that of the AA and control groups. The rates of oxytocin use(4.70%), urinary retention(4.70%), and postpartum hemorrhage [(273.7 ± 53.6) m L] in the AA group were significantly lower than in the CSEA group [46.70%, 24.20%, and(320.0 ± 85.6) m L, respectively].CONCLUSION: Both AA and CSEA were effective for labor pain relief, CSEA provided more effective pain relief, while AA was associated with a shorter duration of labor and fewer adverse effects.and each has its advantages and disadvantages.</abstract><cop>China</cop><pmid>32188223</pmid><tpages>7</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0255-2922
ispartof Journal of traditional Chinese medicine = Chung i tsa chih ying wen pan, 2017-10, Vol.37 (5), p.629-635
issn 0255-2922
2589-451X
language eng
recordid cdi_chongqing_primary_673787259
source Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; Alma/SFX Local Collection
title Effectiveness of acupuncture versus spinal-epidural anesthesia on labor pain: a randomized controlled trial
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-28T20%3A28%3A40IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-pubmed_chong&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Effectiveness%20of%20acupuncture%20versus%20spinal-epidural%20anesthesia%20on%20labor%20pain%EF%BC%9A%20a%20randomized%20controlled%20trial&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20traditional%20Chinese%20medicine%20=%20Chung%20i%20tsa%20chih%20ying%20wen%20pan&rft.au=Wu,%20Lingling&rft.date=2017-10-01&rft.volume=37&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=629&rft.epage=635&rft.pages=629-635&rft.issn=0255-2922&rft.eissn=2589-451X&rft_id=info:doi/&rft_dat=%3Cpubmed_chong%3E32188223%3C/pubmed_chong%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/32188223&rft_cqvip_id=673787259&rfr_iscdi=true