A randomised controlled trial of epidural compared with non‐epidural analgesia in labour

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To investigate possible short and long term side effects of epidural analgesia, compared with non-epidural analgesia for pain relief in labour. DESIGN: Randomised controlled study, with long term follow up by questionnaire. Analysis by intention-to-treat. SETTING: Busy maternity unit within a district general hospital in England. PARTICIPANTS: Three hundred and sixty nine primigravid women in labour were included (randomised allocation: epidural n = 184, non-epidural n = 185). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Backache at three and twelve months after delivery, instrumental delivery rates and maternal opinion of pain relief in labour. RESULTS: No significant differences were found in the reported incidence of backache between the groups at three months: middle backache [22% vs 20%, chi2 = 0.057, P = 0.81; odds ratio (95% CI) 1.4(0.9-2.3)]; low backache [35% vs 34%, chi2 = 0.009, P = 0.92; odds ratio (95% CI) 1.0(0.6-1.6)]. Nor were there significant differences at 12 months: [middle backache 16% vs 16%, chi2 = 0.013, P = 0.91; odds ratio (95% CI) 1.0(0.5-1.8)]; or low backache [35% vs 27%, chi2 = 1.91, P = 0.17; odds ratio (95% CI) 1.4(0.9-2.3)]. The incidence of instrumental delivery was somewhat higher in the epidural group [30% vs 19%, odds ratio (95% CI) 1.77(1.09-2.86)]. Maternal satisfaction was not significantly different between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: This study provided no evidence to support the suggestion of a direct association between the use of epidural anaesthesia in labour and the incidence of long term backache. Despite a significant proportion of women in each group not receiving their allocated analgesia, a significant difference in terms of instrumental delivery rates remained. Satisfaction in both groups of women was high.