الفهرس 
INTRODUCTIONOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 73 |  |  |
| | | from | 73 | | |
Abstract
In some regions of the USA, caesarean sections are among the most common surgical procedures, with rates rising from 20.6 percent in 1997 to 31.5 percent in 2009. The current C-section rate varies from 19 to 33 percent in Europe, from 30 to 50 percent in South America, and is growing in Africa and other places with noticeable discrepancies. In Africa, Burkina Faso had a 2% C-section rate compared to Egypt’s 52% rate, showing a trend of severe variance in C-section rates.
The furthermost used anaesthetic approach for caesarean deliveries nowadays is spinal anaesthesia. The use of spinal anaesthesia is a straightforward and dependable procedure that is also technically simpler to carry out. It offers a quick start of dense neuronal blockade that is often extra profound, reducing the need for further intravenous analgesics or generalisation of anaesthesia. Although a functional spinal blockade may be established with a tiny dose of local anaesthetic, spinal anaesthesia is linked by a negligible threat for systemic local anaesthetic toxicity in the mother as well as a negligible risk for drug transfer to the foetus.
The best method for women undergoing an elective caesarean section has recently been spinal (intrathecal) anaesthesia. This kind of localised anaesthesia allows patients to be awake throughout delivery and is linked to decreased mother and foetal morbidity and death.
One among of the long-acting local anaesthetics is the amino amide local anaesthetic bupivacaine. Its usage was first documented in 1963.
A local anaesthetic that functions pharmacologically similarly to lidocaine is prilocaine. Nowadays, infiltration anaesthesia in dentistry is where it is most frequently employed.
This study compares the effects of spinal anaesthesia administered by hyperbaric prilocaine and hyperbaric bupivacaine in women having elective caesareans.
This study, which involved 50 patients scheduled for elective caesarean sections, was done at El-Shatby Hospital, a facility affiliated with our Alexandria University. According to American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) II, patients were chosen based on a history taken, a clinical examination, and regular laboratory tests.
The patients were divided into two groups; each group includes 25 patients.
group I: The patients were received spinal anesthesia using 2% hyperbaric prilocaine.
group II: The patients were received spinal anesthesia with 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine.
Our study’s findings demonstrated that there was definitely not significant difference involving the two groups tested for factors including age, weight, and height