This paper examines the widespread use of epidural anesthesia during labor and delivery, focusing on the unintended medical interventions and physical restrictions it frequently generates. Drawing on nursing and obstetric research, the paper discusses how epidural anesthesia — despite its popularity and comfort benefits — is associated with increased oxytocin use, prolonged labor, poor fetal rotation, instrument-assisted delivery, mandatory urinary catheterization, and limited maternal mobility. The paper also addresses serious side effects such as femoral neuropathy, spinal infection, and severe headache. From a nursing advocacy perspective, it argues that mandatory intervention protocols accompanying epidural placement should be re-evaluated, and that the practice should be positioned as helpful but potentially risky rather than as a universal standard of care.
The utilization of epidural anesthesia during labor has increased exponentially over the last 30 years. The practice offers individuals increased comfort and reduced pain during delivery and is a very popular option for women as well as for the doctors and nurses who assist with their deliveries. "In the United States, epidural anesthesia has become the most commonly employed tool to manage the pain of labor. Indeed, 71% of a representative sample of women in America who used pain medication during their vaginal birth labors reported having had an epidural" (De Sevo & Semeraro, 2010, p. 11). Epidural anesthesia is recommended to nearly every pregnant woman approaching delivery, unless such treatment is primarily contraindicated by some other medical condition.
For many, the use of epidural anesthesia is a medical breakthrough that allows women to almost completely avoid the pain of labor with very limited risk to herself or the child. Conversely, however, there is substantial evidence that epidural anesthesia carries a long list of potential and real complications that, once administered, require additional medical intervention and seriously restrict movement to a short list of passive positions — sitting, semi-sitting, and side-lying in bed.
Optimal positioning or walking during labor may be limited for many reasons associated with epidural anesthesia. Its use is associated with increased administration of IV oxytocin, poor fetal progression and rotation down the birth canal, prolonged late-stage labor, lower Apgar scores for the baby, and increased use of continuous fetal heart rate monitoring, continuous urinary catheterization, and mechanical labor interventions such as vacuum suction and forceps (De Sevo & Semeraro, 2010, p. 11; Stremler, Halpern, Weston, Yee, & Hodnett, 2009, pp. 391–392). Nursing and cultural expectations also play a role in limiting movement during labor, "because of caregiver reluctance to allow women to ambulate, because some women prefer to labor in bed, and because cultural expectation may be to lie in bed for labor" (Stremler et al., 2009, p. 391).
A growing body of research, along with anecdotal knowledge, has highlighted the fact that epidural anesthesia often creates unintended side effects and may limit the laboring woman's ability to achieve optimal labor — that is, smooth labor and delivery with positional comfort and limited fetal disturbances. These limitations include the inability to reposition for better fetal progression, the requirement for catheterization, and most importantly, the increased likelihood of medical and mechanical intervention. Many of these unintended consequences have over time been directly linked to the use of epidural anesthesia.
Beyond the labor complications already discussed, epidural anesthesia carries a shorter but important list of more serious side effects. These include short- or long-term femoral neuropathy (Peirce, O'Brien, & O'Herlihy, 2010, pp. 203–204), infection and contamination at the catheter insertion site or in the spinal fluid (Welliver, Welliver, Carroll, & James, 2010, p. 197), and the potential risk of a severe "spinal" headache. Each of these complications may require further treatment and extend the burden of medical intervention beyond the delivery itself.
"How nursing norms reinforce over-medicalized labor care"
"Reforming catheterization and mobility restrictions post-epidural"
Reducing the perception of the epidural as the "standard practice" in labor and delivery will likely go far in reducing the medical intervention burden in that clinical setting. Nurses must become advocates who recognize epidural anesthesia as a helpful but potentially risky component of labor and delivery, and who actively challenge some of the mandatory medical restrictions and interventions that accompany its use. Epidural anesthesia practice has improved substantially over the last 30 years in ways that have mitigated some of its unintended consequences. Regardless, it has also been correlated with increased complications for many women, including a greater need for alternative medical interventions, instrument-assisted delivery, prolonged labor, and reduced fetal health — outcomes that might not have occurred at all had epidural anesthesia not been introduced in the first place.
You’re 54% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.