Spinal vs. General Anesthesia in Elective Cesarean Section: A Study of Preferences and Outcomes

• Huda Emsaad Al-Harire

  Derna University, Anesthesia Department, Faculty of Medicine, Derna, Libya

  Author

Background: This study evaluates and compares the effects of spinal and general anaesthesia on maternal and neonatal outcomes during elective cesarean sections, aiming to provide insights into their physiological and clinical impacts. Methods: A total of 38 full-term, low-risk pregnant women were equally divided into two groups: Group I (spinal anaesthesia, n=19) and Group II (general anaesthesia, n=19). Maternal demographic data, intraoperative hemodynamics, postoperative recovery parameters, and neonatal outcomes (Apgar scores and birth weight) were assessed. Statistical analysis determined the significance of differences between groups. Results: Maternal outcomes: Spinal anaesthesia was associated with transient intraoperative hypotension, shorter operation times, faster return of bowel function, and slightly delayed but moderate postoperative analgesia requirements. General anaesthesia showed more stable intraoperative blood pressure initially, but higher postoperative pain scores and analgesia needs. Neonatal outcomes: First-minute Apgar scores were slightly higher in the general anaesthesia group (p < 0.001), but all differences resolved by the fifth minute, indicating similar short-term neonatal safety. Conclusion: Spinal anaesthesia provides advantages in maternal hemodynamic stability and early recovery, supporting its use as the preferred anaesthetic method for elective cesarean sections. General anaesthesia remains a safe alternative in select cases. with no significant long-term neonatal differences observed. These findings highlight the importance of individualised anaesthesia choice based on maternal and obstetric considerations

Açıkel, A., Solangi, A., & Havas, N. (2017). Intraoperative and neonatal outcomes comparing anesthesia techniques for cesarean section. Ain Shams Journal of Anesthesiology (review includes study results supporting spinal anesthesia benefits).

Algert, C. S., Bowen, J. R., Giles, W. B., Knoblanche, G. E., & Lain, S. J. (2009). Regional block versus general anesthesia for cesarean section delivery: A population based study. BMC Medicine.

Alrabai, A. (2025). U-Net Based approach for Brain Tumor Segmentation. Derna Academy Journal for Applied Sciences, 4(2), 76-84.

Afolabi, B. B., & Lesi, F. E. (2012). Regional versus general anesthesia for caesarean section. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (10), CD004350.

Astiata, W., Ahmed, J. A. K., & Youssef, R. S. A. (2025). Prevalence of Work-Related Musculoskeletal Disorders Among Physiotherapists at the Janzour Center for Disability. Derna Academy Journal for Applied Sciences, 4(2), 1-16.

Astiata, W., Mnea, H., & Benour, F. (2025). The Effectiveness of Vestibular Rehabilitation and Balance Exercises in Improving Patients with Inner Ear Balance Disorder. Derna Academy Journal for Applied Sciences, 4(1), 85-89.

Elmansori, A., Ellafi, E., Alamismaery, K., Eljamel, A., Bensoaoud, F., & Adem, N. M. (2024). The Effect of Ketamine and Fentanyl on Emergence Agitation after Sevoflurane-Based Anesthesia in Children Undergoing Tonsillectomy with or without Adenoidectomy: A Randomized Blind Comparison study. Derna Academy Journal for Applied Sciences, 2(2), 123-131.

Ergün, M. O., Eti, E. Z., Saraçoğlu, K. T., & Memişoğlu, A. (2020). Assessment of the optimal anesthesia technique for cesarean section and clinical effects on mothers and newborns. Bezmialem Science, 8(4), 411–417.

Kim, W. H., Hur, M., Park, S. K., Yoo, S., Lim, T., Yoon, H. K., & Bahk, J. H. (2019). Comparison between general, spinal, epidural, and combined spinal epidural anesthesia for cesarean delivery: A network meta analysis. International Journal of Obstetric Anesthesia, 37, 5–15.

Madkour, N. M., Ibrahim, S. A., & Ezz, G. F. (2019). General versus spinal anesthesia during elective cesarean section in term low risk pregnancy as regards maternal and neonatal outcomes: A prospective, controlled clinical trial. Research and Opinion in Anesthesia and Intensive Care, 6(1), 119–124. https://doi.org/10.4103/roaic.roaic_104_17

Mazy, A., Madkour, N., & Shaalan, H. (2019). Can propofol procedural sedation implementation increase the acceptance of spinal anesthesia during cesarean section? Ain Shams Journal of Anesthesiology, 11(1), Article 30. https://doi.org/10.1186/s42077-019-0043-9.

Mtawil, R. A. (2025). EVANS SYNDROME TRIGGERED BY COVID-19 INFECTION. Derna Academy Journal for Applied Sciences, 5(1), 50-52.

Saygı, A. I., Özdamar, Ö., Gün, İ., Emirkadi, H., Müngen, E., & Akpak, Y. K. (2015). Comparison of maternal and fetal outcomes among patients undergoing cesarean section under general and spinal anesthesia: A randomized clinical trial. Sao Paulo Medical Journal, 133(3), 227–234. https://doi.org/10.1590/1516-3180.2014.8901012

Statistical review on cesarean anesthesia outcomes. (2023). Journal of Population Therapeutics and Clinical Pharmacology, [Volume], pages. (Comparison study on Apgar scores under different anesthesia types).

• pdf

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.