The Implementation of Intrathecal Morphine for Caesarean Delivery into Clinical Practice, and Assessment of Its Impact on Patient-reported Quality of Recovery Using the ObsQoR-10-Dutch Scale: A Single-centre Cohort Study

Overview

Journal Eur J Anaesthesiol

Date 2025 Jan 30

PMID 39881592

Authors

Oscar F C van den Bosch

Mienke Rijsdijk

Suzanne E Rosier

Lottie van Baal

Timme P Schaap

Pervez Sultan

Wolfgang Buhre

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Optimising a mother's quality of recovery following caesarean delivery is of paramount importance as it facilitates maternal care of the newborn and affects physical, psychological and emotional well being. Intrathecal morphine (ITM) reduces postoperative pain and may improve quality of recovery: however its widespread use is limited.

Objective: To assess the effects of implementing ITM for caesarean delivery on postoperative quality of recovery.

Study Design: Single-centre observational before-after study.

Setting: Tertiary university hospital, the Netherlands, January 2023 until April 2024.

Study Population: Patients who underwent caesarean delivery under spinal anaesthesia.

Intervention: Patients recruited before implementation of ITM ( n = 55) received patient-controlled intravenous analgesia with morphine or continuation of epidural analgesia previously used for labour ('pre-ITM group'). Patients recruited after implementation of ITM ( n = 47) received ITM 100 μg and oral morphine tablets 10 mg as needed ('ITM group').

Outcomes: Primary outcome was the score on the Obstetric Quality of Recovery (ObsQoR-10-Dutch) questionnaire (0 to 100). Secondary outcomes included ObsQoR-10 subscores, length of stay, opioid consumption and self-reported general health score (0 to 100).

Results: Protocol adherence for ITM was 98%. Quality of recovery improved significantly [ObsQoR-10 scores pre-ITM 65 ± 16 vs. ITM 74 ± 13 points, mean difference 9.0 (95% CI, 3.1 to 15] points, P = 0.002], with improvement in pain scores, physical comfort, independence and psychological wellbeing. In multivariate analysis, the improvement was 6.3 (95% CI, 0.37 to 12.2] points, which was statistically significant but did not reach the predefined threshold for clinical relevance. There was, however, an improvement in self-reported general health score (57 ± 18 vs. 68 ± 17, P = 0.002), median [IQR] length of hospital stay (41 [36 to 51] vs. 37 [32 to 49] h, P = 0.032) and median [IQR] opioid consumption (52 [35 to 73] vs. 0 [0 to 0] mg, P < 0.001).

Conclusions: Implementing ITM for caesarean delivery resulted in moderate improvements in obstetric recovery and reduced opioid consumption. Cautious interpretation is warranted given the nonrandomised design of this implementation study. Our findings support the use of ITM in a multimodal analgesia strategy for patients undergoing caesarean delivery.

References

Sibilla C, Albertazz P, Zatelli R, Martinello R . Perioperative analgesia for caesarean section: comparison of intrathecal morphine and fentanyl alone or in combination. Int J Obstet Anesth. 1997; 6(1):43-8. DOI: 10.1016/s0959-289x(97)80051-9. View

Kumar S, Ashok V, Jain D, Arora A, Singh A, Sikka P . Validation of an obstetric quality of recovery scoring tool (ObsQoR-11) after elective caesarean delivery in a developing country: a prospective observational study. Int J Obstet Anesth. 2021; 49:103235. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijoa.2021.103235. View

Sharawi N, Carvalho B, Habib A, Blake L, Mhyre J, Sultan P . A Systematic Review Evaluating Neuraxial Morphine and Diamorphine-Associated Respiratory Depression After Cesarean Delivery. Anesth Analg. 2018; 127(6):1385-1395. DOI: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000003636. View

Kielty J, Borkowska A, Lawlor E, El-Khuffash A, Doherty A, OFlaherty D . Use of the Obstetric Quality-of-Recovery score (ObsQoR-11) to measure the impact of an enhanced recovery programme for elective caesarean section. Int J Obstet Anesth. 2023; 57:103955. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijoa.2023.103955. View

Kehlet H, Jensen T, Woolf C . Persistent postsurgical pain: risk factors and prevention. Lancet. 2006; 367(9522):1618-25. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(06)68700-X. View

Reed S, Tan H, Fuller M, Krishnamoorthy V, Ohnuma T, Raghunathan K . Analgesia After Cesarean Delivery in the United States 2008-2018: A Retrospective Cohort Study. Anesth Analg. 2021; 133(6):1550-1558. DOI: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000005587. View

Kaufner L, Heimann S, Zander D, Weizsacker K, Correns I, Sander M . Neuraxial anesthesia for pain control after cesarean section: a prospective randomized trial comparing three different neuraxial techniques in clinical practice. Minerva Anestesiol. 2015; 82(5):514-24. View

Abboud T, Dror A, Mosaad P, Zhu J, Mantilla M, Swart F . Mini-dose intrathecal morphine for the relief of post-cesarean section pain: safety, efficacy, and ventilatory responses to carbon dioxide. Anesth Analg. 1988; 67(2):137-43. View

Gonzalez-Pizarro P, Brazzi L, Koch S, Trinks A, Muret J, Sperna Weiland N . European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care consensus document on sustainability: 4 scopes to achieve a more sustainable practice. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2024; 41(4):260-277. DOI: 10.1097/EJA.0000000000001942. View

10.

Oji-Zurmeyer J, Ortner C, Klein K, Gries M, Kuhn C, Schroffenegger T . National survey of obstetric anaesthesia clinical practices in the republic of Austria. Int J Obstet Anesth. 2019; 39:95-98. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijoa.2019.02.002. View

11.

Abouleish E, Rawal N, Meyer B, Wu A, RASHAD M . A clinical and laboratory study to compare the addition of 0.2 mg of morphine, 0.2 mg of epinephrine, or their combination to hyperbaric bupivacaine for spinal anesthesia in cesarean section. Anesth Analg. 1993; 77(3):457-62. DOI: 10.1213/00000539-199309000-00007. View

12.

Grape S, Kirkham K, Albrecht E . Transversus abdominis plane block versus local anaesthetic wound infiltration for analgesia after caesarean section: A systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2021; 39(3):244-251. DOI: 10.1097/EJA.0000000000001552. View

13.

Orbach-Zinger S, Ioscovich A, Aviram A, Babytz S, Fein S, Reuveni A . National survey of postoperative pain control after cesarean delivery. Isr Med Assoc J. 2014; 16(3):153-6. View

14.

Beenakkers I, Schaap T, van den Bosch O . High Neuraxial Block in Obstetrics: A 2.5-Year Nationwide Surveillance Approach in the Netherlands. Anesth Analg. 2024; 139(6):1165-1169. PMC: 11540265. DOI: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000006866. View

15.

Bollag L, Lim G, Sultan P, Habib A, Landau R, Zakowski M . Society for Obstetric Anesthesia and Perinatology: Consensus Statement and Recommendations for Enhanced Recovery After Cesarean. Anesth Analg. 2020; 132(5):1362-1377. DOI: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000005257. View

16.

Querney J, Li Y, Li A, Singh S, Jones P, Dobrowlanski A . Adult attachment style as a predictor for post-cesarean pain: a pilot study. Int J Obstet Anesth. 2024; 58:103977. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijoa.2024.103977. View

17.

Adesope O, Ituk U, Habib A . Local anaesthetic wound infiltration for postcaesarean section analgesia: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2016; 33(10):731-42. DOI: 10.1097/EJA.0000000000000462. View

18.

Shalev S, Orbach-Zinger S, Sultan P, Guo N, Ronel I, Davis A . Obstetric quality of recovery scoring tool: assessment of validity, reliability and feasibility in an Israeli cesarean delivery population. Int J Obstet Anesth. 2020; 44:51. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijoa.2020.07.009. View

19.

Dahl J, Jeppesen I, Jorgensen H, Wetterslev J, Moiniche S . Intraoperative and postoperative analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of intrathecal opioids in patients undergoing cesarean section with spinal anesthesia: a qualitative and quantitative systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Anesthesiology. 1999; 91(6):1919-27. DOI: 10.1097/00000542-199912000-00045. View

20.

Lawal O, Gold J, Murthy A, Ruchi R, Bavry E, Hume A . Rate and Risk Factors Associated With Prolonged Opioid Use After Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JAMA Netw Open. 2020; 3(6):e207367. PMC: 7317603. DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.7367. View