Osteopathic status of maternity patients after spinal anesthesia and the possibility of its correction

Introduction. Spinal anesthesia (SA) is one of the most versatile and reliable methods used for pain relief in obstetric patient groups. However, like any other method of anesthesia, spinal anesthesia in some cases can be associated with the risk of complications and side effects. These effects may include developing functional disorders (somatic dysfunctions), timely diagnosis and correction of which can prevent the development of pathology. Evaluation of the impact of SA on the osteopathic status of patients, as well as the use of non-drug methods (including osteopathic correction) for treating side effects after using SA, taking in consideration the lack of the possibility of using drug correction methods in the postpartum period, has an interest to the practitioner. The aim of the study is to study the osteopathic status of maternity patients (puerperas) after spinal anesthesia and the possibility of its osteopathic correction.

Materials and methods. The study involved 140 women aged 20 to 30 years with a pregnancy of 38–41 weeks. Three groups were formed by simple randomization: the main group (50 people, participants received spinal anesthesia during childbirth and osteopathic correction after childbirth), the control group (50 people, participants did not receive spinal anesthesia during childbirth, but received osteopathic correction after childbirth), and comparison group (40 people, participants received spinal anesthesia during childbirth, but did not receive osteopathic correction after childbirth). All participants were assessed for osteopathic status and the presence of soreness during palpation at typical painful points. The examination was carried out three times: before childbirth, after childbirth, and after the course of correction in the main and control groups (in the comparison group, this was, respectively, the second postpartum examination).

Results. In the postpartum period, the participants of the main group and the comparison group (who received SA) were characterized by a statistically signifi cant (p<0,05) increase in the detection frequency of global rhythmogenic cranial disorders compared with the initial (prepartum) values. At the time of the fi nal examination, there were no signifi cant differences with the initial values. During all stages of the study, biomechanical disorders of the following regions were most characteristic for its participants: thoracic (structural component), lumbar (visceral and structural component), pelvis (visceral and structural component). In the control group, there was a statistically signifi cant (p<0,05) increase in the detection frequency of somatic dysfunctions (SD) in the lumbar region (visceral component) after childbirth, compared with baseline indicators. After osteopathic correction in this group, the detection frequency of these disorders did not signifi cantly differ from the initial values. In the main and control groups, a statistically signifi cant (p<0,05) decrease in the detection frequency of SD in the pelvic region (structural component) was found after the correction, compared with the initial values. After childbirth, an increase in the amount of SD in the dura mater region was observed in the main group and the comparison group. During this period, there was a statistically signifi cant (p<0,05) more frequent detection of dura mater SD in the main group compared with the control group. At the fi nal examination, dura mater SD was detected in all groups almost as rarely as before childbirth.

Conclusion. The regional somatic dysfunctions of the thoracic, lumbar, and pelvic regions were the most characteristic for the examined puerperas. Postpartum women who received spinal anesthesia during childbirth are characterized by an increase in the detection frequency of global rhythmogenic cranial disorders and regional biomechanical disorders of the dura mater after childbirth. Postpartum women who did not receive spinal anesthesia during childbirth are characterized by an increase in the detection frequency of regional biomechanical disorders in the lumbar region (visceral component) after childbirth. After osteopathic correction, the frequency of detection of these disorders decreases almost to the baseline. Osteopathic correction is accompanied by a decrease in the detection frequency of disorders of the pelvic region (structural component) compared with the initial values, both in puerperas who received spinal anesthesia and in those who did not receive it.

1. Clinical guidelines. Treatment protocols in obstetrics and gynecology / Eds. A. V. Kulikov, E. M. Shifman. M.: Medicine; 2017; 688 p. (in russ.).

2. Palmer C. M. Continuous spinal anesthesia and analgesia in obstetrics. Anesth. Analg. 2010; 111 (6): 1476–1479. https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0b013e3181f7e3f4

3. Shifman E. M. Complications of neuraxial methods of anesthesia in obstetrics: Thirty questions and answers. Regional Anesthesia and Acute Pain Management. 2006; 1 (0): 35–53 (in russ.).

4. Morgan Jr. J. E., Mikhail M. S. Clinical anesthesiology: Book one. M.–SPb.: BINOM-Nevsky Dialect; 2001; 396 p. (in russ.).

5. Bredikhin A. V., Bredikhin K. A., Chekha O. A. Craniosacral system, its components and signs of dysfunction. Med. News. 2014; (11): 43–49 (in russ.).

6. Mokhov D. E., Aptekar I. A., Belash V. O., Litvinov I. A., Mogelnitsky A. S., Potekhina Yu. P., Tarasov N. A., Tarasova V. V., Tregubova E. S., Ustinov A. V. The basics of osteopathy: A textbook for residents. M.: GEOTAR-Media; 2020; 400 p. (in russ.).

7. Mokhov D. E., Belash V. O., Kuzmina Ju. O., Lebedev D. S., Miroshnichenko D. B., Tregubova E. S., Shirjaeva E. E., Yushmanov I. G. Osteopathic Diagnosis of Somatic Dysfunctions: Clinical Recommendations. St. Petersburg: Nevskij rakurs; 2015; 90 p. (in russ.).

8. Mokhov D. E., Belash V. O. Methodology of clinical osteopathic examination: Studyguide. St. Petersburg: Izd-vo SZGMU im. I. I. Mechnikova; 2019; 80 p. (in russ.).

9. Korobkov M. N., Subbotina N. S., Antonen E. G. Neurological manifestations of osteochondrosis of the spine and methods of examination of patients: A study guide. Petrozavodsk: PetrSU Publishing House; 2012; 99 p. (in russ.).

10. Gatchel R. J., McGeary D. D., McGeary C. A., Lippe B. Interdisciplinary chronic pain management: past, present, and future. Amer. Psychol. 2014; 69 (2): 119–130. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035514

11. Scott J., Huskisson E. C. Graphic representation of pain. Pain. 1976; 2 (2): 175–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3959(76)90113-5

12. Nenashkina E. N., Potekhina Yu. P., Tregubova E. S., Belash V. O. Etiopathogenetic aspects of somatic dysfunction formation during pregnancy. Russian Osteopathic Journal. 2020; 3: 41–53 (in russ.). https://doi.org/10.32885/2220-0975-2020-3-41-53

13. Sitkin S. I., Sazonov K. A., Subot V., Pozdnyakov O. B., Ronenson A. M., Volod′ko S. N. Experimental study of fl uid loss following puncturing the dura mater by spinal needles of different types. Regional Anesthesia and Acute Pain Management. 2013; 7 (3): 21–25 (in russ.).

14. Hinebaugh M. C., Lang Wr. Continuous spinal anesthesia for labor and delivery: A preliminary report. Ann. Surg.; 1944; 120: 143–151.

15. Linninger A. A., Tangen K., Hsu C.-Y., Frim D. Cerebrospinal Fluid Mechanics and Its Coupling to Cerebrovascular Dynamics. Ann. Rev. Fluid Mech. 2016; 48 (1): 219-257. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-fluid-122414-034321

16. Triko P. Tissue approach in osteopathy: A model of the body endowed with consciousness. Guide for doctors. St. Petersburg: SPbMAPO Publishing House; 2016; 512 p. (in russ.).

17. Sutherland W. G. Teachings in the Science of Osteopathy. RudraPress: Portland, OR; 1990; 311 p.

18. Upledger D. E. Craniosacral therapy. Part I. St. Petersburg: Sudarynya; 2005; 388 p. (in russ.).

19. Mogelnitsky A. S., Platonov A. S. Possibilities of using manual refl ex action on the dura mater for the correction of spondylogenic pain syndrome // In: XVIII All-Russian scientifi c and practical conference with international participation «Davidenkov′s Readings». St. Petersburg; 2016: 176–178 (in russ.).

20. Golubeva L. Yu., Bolotov D. A., Nikonov S. V., Kishinevskiy E. V. The evaluation of effectiveness of a technique of dura mater relaxation in patients with discogenic lumbar ischialgias. Manual Ther. J.; 2010; 2 (38): 24–33 (in russ.).

21. Mokhov D. E. What is osteopathy and how it can help you be healthy. St. Petersburg: Nevskij rakurs; 2013; 194 p. (in russ.).

22. Osteopathy at the stages of medical rehabilitation: Clinical guidelines. St. Petersburg: Nevskij rakurs; 2015; 20 p. (in russ.).