Trends in Regional Anaesthesia for Caesarean Section in a Nigerian Tertiary Health Centre
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Most caesarean sections were previously performed under general anaesthesia but there has been an increasing trend worldwide in the use of regional anaesthesia as the preferred method of anaesthesia for caesarean delivery. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the trend of practice of regional anaesthesia for caesarean section in a tertiary hospital in South-western part of Nigeria. METHODS: The obstetric operating room records at the Olabisi Onabanjo University Teaching Hospital, Sagamu, Nigeria were reviewed for a twenty-year period: January 1986 to December 2005. The anaesthetic techniques for caesarean section and the level of training of the attending anaesthetist were noted. RESULTS: A total of 1,785 patients were delivered by caesarean section during the twenty-year period . Most patients [1578(88.4%)] had caesarean section under general anaesthesia while 207(11.6%) had regional anaesthesia. Subarachnoid block accounted for 89(5%) of the patients and 118(6.6%) had the caesarean section under epidural block. One hundred and ten (21.5%) of the regional techniques were in the first quarter of the 20-year period. This figure fell to eight (2%) in the second quarter; zero in the third quarter and rose to 82(13.7%) in the last quarter demonstrating an increasing trend of regional technique for caesarean section. Majority of the epidural blocks were conducted by nurse-anaesthetists while the subarachnoid blocks were administered by anaesthetists. CONCLUSION: There is an overall low practice or usage of regional anaesthetic for caesarean section. A trend towards increasing administration of regional technique for caesarean section is demonstrated. A dedicated period for hand on the job workshop in regional blocks may enhance early and prompt acquisition of relevant skills in regional anaesthesia for caesarean delivery.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".