Randomised comparison of combined spinal-epidural and standard epidural analgesia in labour
Epidural analgesia has a well-established role in labour, but has the drawbacks of delayed onset and motor blockade. The combined spinal-epidural technique may overcome these drawbacks. We carried out a randomised observational study to assess maternal satisfaction with the standard and combined tec...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | The Lancet (British edition) 1995-06, Vol.345 (8962), p.1413-1416 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 1416 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 8962 |
| container_start_page | 1413 |
| container_title | The Lancet (British edition) |
| container_volume | 345 |
| creator | Collis, R.E. Davies, D.W.L. Aveling, W. |
| description | Epidural analgesia has a well-established role in labour, but has the drawbacks of delayed onset and motor blockade. The combined spinal-epidural technique may overcome these drawbacks. We carried out a randomised observational study to assess maternal satisfaction with the standard and combined techniques among 197 women in labour. For combined spinal-epidural analgesia, bupivacaine (2·5 mg) and fentanyl (25 μg) were initially injected into the subarachnoid space, followed by top-ups of 15 mL 0·1% bupivacaine with 2 μg/mL fentanyl into the epidural space, as required. For standard epidural analgesia, 25 mg (10 mL of 0·25%) bupivacaine was injected into the epidural space, followed by top-ups of 6-10 mL 0·25% bupivacaine, as required. Post partum, each woman completed a questionnaire about her labour and scored various items on a visual analogue scale (0=best, 100=worst outcome). Overall satisfaction was greater in the combined spinal-epidural group than in the standard epidural group (median [IQR] score 3 [2-10] vs 9 [3-22]; p=0·0002). Good analgesia was achieved in both groups, but the combined spinal-epidural had faster onset of analgesia and more of this group were satisfied with analgesia at 20 min (92/98 vs 68/99, p |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1016/S0140-6736(95)92602-X |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_77297650</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S014067369592602X</els_id><sourcerecordid>6662970</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c463t-6f95d55d8dbf7b0dc4d85730f5ae1b36e7778191e06fa9563cbc28fabf5e1ab13</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkFuLFDEQhYMo6-zqT1hoRGR9aE0mt87TIos3WBC8wIAPoZJUJEtPp02mBf-9mZ1hEF98SZGq7xSnDiGXjL5ilKnXXygTtFeaqysjX5q1out-84CsmNCil0JvHpLVCXlMzmu9o5QKReUZOdNaUcXEinz_DFPI21QxdD5vZyip5qnLcf9zaWrtOqcJxh7nFJYCY9cEXd21F0ro_urC-ANrgi5N3QguL-UJeRRhrPj0WC_It3dvv9586G8_vf948-a290LxXa-ikUHKMAQXtaPBizBIzWmUgMxxhVrrgRmGVEUwUnHv_HqI4KJEBo7xC_LisHcu-eeCdWfbPR7HESbMS7Var41Wkjbw2T_gXbPZjFfLzGA05VQ0SB4gX3KtBaOdS9pC-W0Ztfvk7X3ydh-rNdLeJ283TXd5XL64LYaT6hh1mz8_zqF6GGOByad6wrjk-zMbdn3AsCX2K2Gx1SecPIZU0O9syOk_Rv4AEDChAA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>198970304</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Randomised comparison of combined spinal-epidural and standard epidural analgesia in labour</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><source>EBSCOhost Business Source Complete</source><source>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</source><creator>Collis, R.E. ; Davies, D.W.L. ; Aveling, W.</creator><creatorcontrib>Collis, R.E. ; Davies, D.W.L. ; Aveling, W.</creatorcontrib><description>Epidural analgesia has a well-established role in labour, but has the drawbacks of delayed onset and motor blockade. The combined spinal-epidural technique may overcome these drawbacks. We carried out a randomised observational study to assess maternal satisfaction with the standard and combined techniques among 197 women in labour. For combined spinal-epidural analgesia, bupivacaine (2·5 mg) and fentanyl (25 μg) were initially injected into the subarachnoid space, followed by top-ups of 15 mL 0·1% bupivacaine with 2 μg/mL fentanyl into the epidural space, as required. For standard epidural analgesia, 25 mg (10 mL of 0·25%) bupivacaine was injected into the epidural space, followed by top-ups of 6-10 mL 0·25% bupivacaine, as required. Post partum, each woman completed a questionnaire about her labour and scored various items on a visual analogue scale (0=best, 100=worst outcome). Overall satisfaction was greater in the combined spinal-epidural group than in the standard epidural group (median [IQR] score 3 [2-10] vs 9 [3-22]; p=0·0002). Good analgesia was achieved in both groups, but the combined spinal-epidural had faster onset of analgesia and more of this group were satisfied with analgesia at 20 min (92/98 vs 68/99, p<0·0001). 12 women in the combined spinal-epidural group had leg weakness (as shown by an inability to raise the straight legs) at 20 min, but this initial motor block had resolved in most of these mothers by 1 h. In the standard epidural group 32 had leg weakness at 20 min (p=0·001), and the proportion of mothers with weakness increased in this group during labour. There were no differences in side-effects, except for mild pruritus, which was more common in the combined spinal-epidural group (42 vs 1%; p<0·0001). Overall, women seem to prefer the low-dose combined spinal-epidural technique to standard epidurals, perhaps because of the faster onset, less motor block, and feelings of greater self-control.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0140-6736</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1474-547X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(95)92602-X</identifier><identifier>PMID: 7760614</identifier><identifier>CODEN: LANCAO</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>London: Elsevier Ltd</publisher><subject>Analgesics ; Anesthesia, Epidural - methods ; Anesthesia, Obstetrical - methods ; Anesthesia, Spinal - methods ; Biological and medical sciences ; Births ; Delivery. Postpartum. Lactation ; Female ; Gynecology. Andrology. Obstetrics ; Humans ; Labor, Obstetric ; Medical research ; Medical sciences ; Observational studies ; Obstetrical techniques ; Pain Measurement ; Patient Satisfaction ; Pregnancy ; Prospective Studies ; Women</subject><ispartof>The Lancet (British edition), 1995-06, Vol.345 (8962), p.1413-1416</ispartof><rights>1995</rights><rights>1995 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>Copyright Lancet Ltd. Jun 3, 1995</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c463t-6f95d55d8dbf7b0dc4d85730f5ae1b36e7778191e06fa9563cbc28fabf5e1ab13</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c463t-6f95d55d8dbf7b0dc4d85730f5ae1b36e7778191e06fa9563cbc28fabf5e1ab13</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/198970304?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,778,782,3539,27907,27908,45978,64366,64368,64370,72220</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=3537781$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7760614$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Collis, R.E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Davies, D.W.L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Aveling, W.</creatorcontrib><title>Randomised comparison of combined spinal-epidural and standard epidural analgesia in labour</title><title>The Lancet (British edition)</title><addtitle>Lancet</addtitle><description>Epidural analgesia has a well-established role in labour, but has the drawbacks of delayed onset and motor blockade. The combined spinal-epidural technique may overcome these drawbacks. We carried out a randomised observational study to assess maternal satisfaction with the standard and combined techniques among 197 women in labour. For combined spinal-epidural analgesia, bupivacaine (2·5 mg) and fentanyl (25 μg) were initially injected into the subarachnoid space, followed by top-ups of 15 mL 0·1% bupivacaine with 2 μg/mL fentanyl into the epidural space, as required. For standard epidural analgesia, 25 mg (10 mL of 0·25%) bupivacaine was injected into the epidural space, followed by top-ups of 6-10 mL 0·25% bupivacaine, as required. Post partum, each woman completed a questionnaire about her labour and scored various items on a visual analogue scale (0=best, 100=worst outcome). Overall satisfaction was greater in the combined spinal-epidural group than in the standard epidural group (median [IQR] score 3 [2-10] vs 9 [3-22]; p=0·0002). Good analgesia was achieved in both groups, but the combined spinal-epidural had faster onset of analgesia and more of this group were satisfied with analgesia at 20 min (92/98 vs 68/99, p<0·0001). 12 women in the combined spinal-epidural group had leg weakness (as shown by an inability to raise the straight legs) at 20 min, but this initial motor block had resolved in most of these mothers by 1 h. In the standard epidural group 32 had leg weakness at 20 min (p=0·001), and the proportion of mothers with weakness increased in this group during labour. There were no differences in side-effects, except for mild pruritus, which was more common in the combined spinal-epidural group (42 vs 1%; p<0·0001). Overall, women seem to prefer the low-dose combined spinal-epidural technique to standard epidurals, perhaps because of the faster onset, less motor block, and feelings of greater self-control.</description><subject>Analgesics</subject><subject>Anesthesia, Epidural - methods</subject><subject>Anesthesia, Obstetrical - methods</subject><subject>Anesthesia, Spinal - methods</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Births</subject><subject>Delivery. Postpartum. Lactation</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Gynecology. Andrology. Obstetrics</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Labor, Obstetric</subject><subject>Medical research</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Observational studies</subject><subject>Obstetrical techniques</subject><subject>Pain Measurement</subject><subject>Patient Satisfaction</subject><subject>Pregnancy</subject><subject>Prospective Studies</subject><subject>Women</subject><issn>0140-6736</issn><issn>1474-547X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1995</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkFuLFDEQhYMo6-zqT1hoRGR9aE0mt87TIos3WBC8wIAPoZJUJEtPp02mBf-9mZ1hEF98SZGq7xSnDiGXjL5ilKnXXygTtFeaqysjX5q1out-84CsmNCil0JvHpLVCXlMzmu9o5QKReUZOdNaUcXEinz_DFPI21QxdD5vZyip5qnLcf9zaWrtOqcJxh7nFJYCY9cEXd21F0ro_urC-ANrgi5N3QguL-UJeRRhrPj0WC_It3dvv9586G8_vf948-a290LxXa-ikUHKMAQXtaPBizBIzWmUgMxxhVrrgRmGVEUwUnHv_HqI4KJEBo7xC_LisHcu-eeCdWfbPR7HESbMS7Var41Wkjbw2T_gXbPZjFfLzGA05VQ0SB4gX3KtBaOdS9pC-W0Ztfvk7X3ydh-rNdLeJ283TXd5XL64LYaT6hh1mz8_zqF6GGOByad6wrjk-zMbdn3AsCX2K2Gx1SecPIZU0O9syOk_Rv4AEDChAA</recordid><startdate>19950603</startdate><enddate>19950603</enddate><creator>Collis, R.E.</creator><creator>Davies, D.W.L.</creator><creator>Aveling, W.</creator><general>Elsevier Ltd</general><general>Lancet</general><general>Elsevier Limited</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0TT</scope><scope>0TZ</scope><scope>0U~</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QP</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>7U7</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88A</scope><scope>88C</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88G</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8AF</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8C2</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AN0</scope><scope>ASE</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FPQ</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K6X</scope><scope>K9-</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>KB~</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0R</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M0T</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2M</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>S0X</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>19950603</creationdate><title>Randomised comparison of combined spinal-epidural and standard epidural analgesia in labour</title><author>Collis, R.E. ; Davies, D.W.L. ; Aveling, W.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c463t-6f95d55d8dbf7b0dc4d85730f5ae1b36e7778191e06fa9563cbc28fabf5e1ab13</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1995</creationdate><topic>Analgesics</topic><topic>Anesthesia, Epidural - methods</topic><topic>Anesthesia, Obstetrical - methods</topic><topic>Anesthesia, Spinal - methods</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Births</topic><topic>Delivery. Postpartum. Lactation</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Gynecology. Andrology. Obstetrics</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Labor, Obstetric</topic><topic>Medical research</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Observational studies</topic><topic>Obstetrical techniques</topic><topic>Pain Measurement</topic><topic>Patient Satisfaction</topic><topic>Pregnancy</topic><topic>Prospective Studies</topic><topic>Women</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Collis, R.E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Davies, D.W.L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Aveling, W.</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>News PRO</collection><collection>Pharma and Biotech Premium PRO</collection><collection>Global News & ABI/Inform Professional</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Calcium & Calcified Tissue Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>Toxicology Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Biology Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Psychology Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>STEM Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Lancet Titles</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>British Nursing Database</collection><collection>British Nursing Index</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>eLibrary</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>British Nursing Index (BNI) (1985 to Present)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>British Nursing Index</collection><collection>Consumer Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Newsstand Professional</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Consumer Health Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Psychology</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>SIRS Editorial</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>The Lancet (British edition)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Collis, R.E.</au><au>Davies, D.W.L.</au><au>Aveling, W.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Randomised comparison of combined spinal-epidural and standard epidural analgesia in labour</atitle><jtitle>The Lancet (British edition)</jtitle><addtitle>Lancet</addtitle><date>1995-06-03</date><risdate>1995</risdate><volume>345</volume><issue>8962</issue><spage>1413</spage><epage>1416</epage><pages>1413-1416</pages><issn>0140-6736</issn><eissn>1474-547X</eissn><coden>LANCAO</coden><abstract>Epidural analgesia has a well-established role in labour, but has the drawbacks of delayed onset and motor blockade. The combined spinal-epidural technique may overcome these drawbacks. We carried out a randomised observational study to assess maternal satisfaction with the standard and combined techniques among 197 women in labour. For combined spinal-epidural analgesia, bupivacaine (2·5 mg) and fentanyl (25 μg) were initially injected into the subarachnoid space, followed by top-ups of 15 mL 0·1% bupivacaine with 2 μg/mL fentanyl into the epidural space, as required. For standard epidural analgesia, 25 mg (10 mL of 0·25%) bupivacaine was injected into the epidural space, followed by top-ups of 6-10 mL 0·25% bupivacaine, as required. Post partum, each woman completed a questionnaire about her labour and scored various items on a visual analogue scale (0=best, 100=worst outcome). Overall satisfaction was greater in the combined spinal-epidural group than in the standard epidural group (median [IQR] score 3 [2-10] vs 9 [3-22]; p=0·0002). Good analgesia was achieved in both groups, but the combined spinal-epidural had faster onset of analgesia and more of this group were satisfied with analgesia at 20 min (92/98 vs 68/99, p<0·0001). 12 women in the combined spinal-epidural group had leg weakness (as shown by an inability to raise the straight legs) at 20 min, but this initial motor block had resolved in most of these mothers by 1 h. In the standard epidural group 32 had leg weakness at 20 min (p=0·001), and the proportion of mothers with weakness increased in this group during labour. There were no differences in side-effects, except for mild pruritus, which was more common in the combined spinal-epidural group (42 vs 1%; p<0·0001). Overall, women seem to prefer the low-dose combined spinal-epidural technique to standard epidurals, perhaps because of the faster onset, less motor block, and feelings of greater self-control.</abstract><cop>London</cop><pub>Elsevier Ltd</pub><pmid>7760614</pmid><doi>10.1016/S0140-6736(95)92602-X</doi><tpages>4</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0140-6736 |
| ispartof | The Lancet (British edition), 1995-06, Vol.345 (8962), p.1413-1416 |
| issn | 0140-6736 1474-547X |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_77297650 |
| source | MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals; EBSCOhost Business Source Complete; ProQuest Central UK/Ireland |
| subjects | Analgesics Anesthesia, Epidural - methods Anesthesia, Obstetrical - methods Anesthesia, Spinal - methods Biological and medical sciences Births Delivery. Postpartum. Lactation Female Gynecology. Andrology. Obstetrics Humans Labor, Obstetric Medical research Medical sciences Observational studies Obstetrical techniques Pain Measurement Patient Satisfaction Pregnancy Prospective Studies Women |
| title | Randomised comparison of combined spinal-epidural and standard epidural analgesia in labour |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-17T01%3A21%3A12IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Randomised%20comparison%20of%20combined%20spinal-epidural%20and%20standard%20epidural%20analgesia%20in%20labour&rft.jtitle=The%20Lancet%20(British%20edition)&rft.au=Collis,%20R.E.&rft.date=1995-06-03&rft.volume=345&rft.issue=8962&rft.spage=1413&rft.epage=1416&rft.pages=1413-1416&rft.issn=0140-6736&rft.eissn=1474-547X&rft.coden=LANCAO&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/S0140-6736(95)92602-X&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E6662970%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=198970304&rft_id=info:pmid/7760614&rft_els_id=S014067369592602X&rfr_iscdi=true |