{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,9,4]],"date-time":"2026-09-04T12:21:05Z","timestamp":1788524465851,"version":"build-2803163510"},"reference-count":21,"publisher":"Springer Science and Business Media LLC","issue":"1","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2026,6,23]],"date-time":"2026-06-23T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1782172800000},"content-version":"tdm","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/4.0"},{"start":{"date-parts":[[2026,9,4]],"date-time":"2026-09-04T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1788480000000},"content-version":"vor","delay-in-days":73,"URL":"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/4.0"}],"funder":[{"name":"Jan Pretorius Research Fund from the South African Society of Anaesthesiologists"}],"content-domain":{"domain":["link.springer.com"],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":["BMC Anesthesiol"],"abstract":"<jats:title>Abstract<\/jats:title>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Background<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>Intrathecal morphine is recommended for post-caesarean analgesia, but its implementation remains inconsistent in resource-constrained obstetric services, where short-acting intrathecal fentanyl is often favoured instead because of familiarity and perceived simplicity of use. We compared two low doses of intrathecal morphine with intrathecal fentanyl in women undergoing caesarean delivery under spinal anaesthesia in a South African public-sector hospital.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Methods<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>This was a single-centre, participant- and outcome-assessor-blinded, parallel-group pragmatic randomised trial. Women undergoing caesarean delivery under single-shot spinal anaesthesia were allocated to hyperbaric bupivacaine 0.5% 1.8\u00a0ml mixed with intrathecal morphine 100\u00a0\u00b5g (M100), intrathecal morphine 50\u00a0\u00b5g (M50), or intrathecal fentanyl 25\u00a0\u00b5g (F25). All participants received postoperative intravenous (IV) morphine patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) and rectal indomethacin. The primary outcome was cumulative 24-hour IV PCA morphine consumption. Secondary outcomes were morphine consumption for 0\u201312\u00a0h and 12\u201324\u00a0h, pain numerical rating scale (NRS) scores at rest and with cough at 12 and 24\u00a0h, perceived pain relief over 24\u00a0h, and whether participants wanted more analgesic treatment. The prespecified primary analysis was per protocol, with a supportive intention-to-treat analysis.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Results<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>\n                      One hundred women were randomised. Ninety-three comprised the per-protocol efficacy cohort (M100\n                      <jats:italic>n<\/jats:italic>\n                      \u2009=\u200932, M50\n                      <jats:italic>n<\/jats:italic>\n                      \u2009=\u200929, F25\n                      <jats:italic>n<\/jats:italic>\n                      \u2009=\u200932). Median 24-hour IV PCA morphine consumption differed significantly between groups: 12.5\u00a0mg (Q1, Q3: 6.0, 20.25) in M100, 15.0\u00a0mg (9.0, 25.0) in M50, and 26.0\u00a0mg (16.5, 38.5) in F25 (\n                      <jats:italic>p<\/jats:italic>\n                      \u2009&lt;\u20090.001). After Holm adjustment for the three pairwise comparisons at the primary endpoint, the morphine groups required less rescue opioid than F25 (M100 vs. F25 adjusted\n                      <jats:italic>p<\/jats:italic>\n                      \u2009=\u20090.00081; M50 vs. F25 adjusted\n                      <jats:italic>p<\/jats:italic>\n                      \u2009=\u20090.019), whereas M100 and M50 did not differ (adjusted\n                      <jats:italic>p<\/jats:italic>\n                      \u2009=\u20090.326). Hodges-Lehmann estimates of the median difference in 24-hour morphine consumption were \u2212\u200913.0\u00a0mg (95% CI -20.0 to -7.0) for M100 vs. F25 and \u2212\u200910.5\u00a0mg (95% CI -18.0 to -3.0) for M50 vs. F25, and \u2212\u20093.0\u00a0mg (95% CI -8.0 to 3.0) for M100 vs. M50. The same directional pattern was present for 0\u201312\u00a0h and 12\u201324\u00a0h. Pain scores at rest and with cough did not differ significantly between groups at either postoperative assessment. Perceived pain relief over 24\u00a0h was similar across groups, and the proportion of women who wanted more analgesic treatment did not differ significantly. The intention-to-treat analysis was concordant with the per-protocol analysis.\n                    <\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Conclusions<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>In this single-centre pragmatic trial conducted in a South African public-sector hospital, low-dose intrathecal morphine at both 50\u00a0\u00b5g and 100\u00a0\u00b5g reduced 24-hour postoperative opioid requirements after caesarean delivery compared with intrathecal fentanyl 25\u00a0\u00b5g. These findings additionally support 50\u00a0\u00b5g intrathecal morphine as an effective and implementable option for post-caesarean analgesia in resource-constrained obstetric settings.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Trial registration<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02577809 (retrospectively registered 10 October 2015).<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>","DOI":"10.1186\/s12871-026-04034-0","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2026,6,23]],"date-time":"2026-06-23T00:09:59Z","timestamp":1782173399000},"update-policy":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/springer_crossmark_policy","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":0,"title":["Low-dose intrathecal morphine versus intrathecal fentanyl for post-caesarean analgesia in a resource-constrained setting: a pragmatic randomised trial"],"prefix":"10.1186","volume":"26","author":[{"ORCID":"https:\/\/orcid.org\/0000-0002-9878-5488","authenticated-orcid":false,"given":"Sean","family":"Chetty","sequence":"first","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"ORCID":"https:\/\/orcid.org\/0000-0002-6549-0106","authenticated-orcid":false,"given":"Fathima","family":"Paruk","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"ORCID":"https:\/\/orcid.org\/0000-0002-3103-5295","authenticated-orcid":false,"given":"Peter","family":"Kamerman","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]}],"member":"297","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2026,6,23]]},"reference":[{"issue":"1","key":"4034_CR1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"83","DOI":"10.1016\/j.bpa.2022.02.006","volume":"36","author":"E Van de Veef","year":"2022","unstructured":"Van de Veef E. Post-cesarean section analgesia. Best Pract Res Clin Anaesthesiol. 2022;36(1):83\u20138. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.bpa.2022.02.006.","journal-title":"Best Pract Res Clin Anaesthesiol"},{"key":"4034_CR2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","unstructured":"Duch P, Nedergaard HK, J\u00f8rgensen CC. Mobilisation, breastfeeding, and quality of recovery after caesarean delivery: a nationwide prospective cohort study in Denmark with secondary analysis on the association with severe pain. Int J Obstet Anesth. 2026;66. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.ijoa.2026.104863.","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ijoa.2026.104863"},{"issue":"5","key":"4034_CR3","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"665","DOI":"10.1111\/anae.15339","volume":"76","author":"E Roofthooft","year":"2021","unstructured":"Roofthooft E, Joshi GP, Rawal N, Van de Velde M. PROSPECT guideline for elective caesarean section: updated systematic review and procedure-specific postoperative pain management recommendations. Anaesthesia. 2021;76(5):665\u201380. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1111\/anae.15339.","journal-title":"Anaesthesia"},{"issue":"2","key":"4034_CR4","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"458","DOI":"10.1213\/ane.0000000000004195","volume":"129","author":"JR Bauchat","year":"2019","unstructured":"Bauchat JR, Weiniger CF, Sultan P, Habib AS, Ando K, Kowalczyk JJ, et al. Society for Obstetric Anesthesia and Perinatology Consensus Statement: Monitoring Recommendations for Prevention and Detection of Respiratory Depression Associated With Administration of Neuraxial Morphine for Cesarean Delivery Analgesia. Anesth Analgesia. 2019;129(2):458\u201374. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1213\/ane.0000000000004195.","journal-title":"Anesth Analgesia"},{"issue":"5","key":"4034_CR5","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"R1369","DOI":"10.1152\/ajpregu.00862.2004","volume":"288","author":"D Jensen","year":"2005","unstructured":"Jensen D, Wolfe LA, Slatkovska L, Webb KA, Davies GA, O\u2019Donnell DE. Effects of human pregnancy on the ventilatory chemoreflex response to carbon dioxide. Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol. 2005;288(5):R1369\u201375. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1152\/ajpregu.00862.2004.","journal-title":"Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol"},{"key":"4034_CR6","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Bishop D, van Dyk D, Dyer RA. Safe obstetric anaesthesia in low- and middle-income countries\u2014a perspective from Africa. BJA Education. 2023;23(11):432\u20139. doi:10.1016\/j.bjae.2023.07.003.","DOI":"10.1016\/j.bjae.2023.07.003"},{"key":"4034_CR7","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","unstructured":"Zaslansky R, Baumbach P, Edry R, Chetty S, Min LS, Schaub I, et al. Following Evidence-Based Recommendations for Perioperative Pain Management after Cesarean Section Is Associated with Better Pain-Related Outcomes: Analysis of Registry Data. J Clin Med. 2023;12(2). https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3390\/jcm12020676.","DOI":"10.3390\/jcm12020676"},{"issue":"1","key":"4034_CR8","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"111","DOI":"10.1213\/ane.0000000000003975","volume":"130","author":"V Uppal","year":"2020","unstructured":"Uppal V, Retter S, Casey M, Sancheti S, Matheson K, McKeen DM. Efficacy of Intrathecal Fentanyl for Cesarean Delivery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials With Trial Sequential Analysis. Anesth Analgesia. 2020;130(1):111\u201325. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1213\/ane.0000000000003975.","journal-title":"Anesth Analgesia"},{"key":"4034_CR9","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","unstructured":"Gerbershagen MU, Baagil H. Caesarean Delivery: A Narrative Review on the Choice of Neuraxially Administered Opioid and Its Implications for the Multimodal Peripartum Pain Concept. Med (Kaunas). 2024;60(3). https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3390\/medicina60030358.","DOI":"10.3390\/medicina60030358"},{"issue":"1","key":"4034_CR10","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"154","DOI":"10.1213\/ane.0000000000001255","volume":"123","author":"P Sultan","year":"2016","unstructured":"Sultan P, Halpern SH, Pushpanathan E, Patel S, Carvalho B. The Effect of Intrathecal Morphine Dose on Outcomes After Elective Cesarean Delivery: A Meta-Analysis. Anesth Analgesia. 2016;123(1):154\u201364. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1213\/ane.0000000000001255.","journal-title":"Anesth Analgesia"},{"issue":"2","key":"4034_CR11","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"437","DOI":"10.1097\/00000542-199902000-00018","volume":"90","author":"M Palmer Craig","year":"1999","unstructured":"Palmer Craig M, Emerson S, Volgoropolous D, Alves D. Dose-Response Relationship of Intrathecal Morphine for Postcesarean Analgesia. Anesthesiology. 1999;90(2):437\u201344. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1097\/00000542-199902000-00018.","journal-title":"Anesthesiology"},{"issue":"6","key":"4034_CR12","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"492","DOI":"10.1016\/j.bjane.2013.01.001","volume":"63","author":"SB Carvalho FAEd, Ten\u00f3rio","year":"2013","unstructured":"Carvalho FAEd, Ten\u00f3rio SB. Comparative study between doses of intrathecal morphine for analgesia after caesarean. Brazilian J Anesthesiology (English Edition). 2013;63(6):492\u20139. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.bjane.2013.01.001.","journal-title":"Brazilian J Anesthesiology (English Edition)"},{"key":"4034_CR13","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","unstructured":"Hatter KH, Shugart NW, Paladugu N, Nitchie H, Wolf B, Hebbar L. Low dose intrathecal morphine for post-cesarean analgesia with scheduled multimodal pain regimen: a prospective, randomized, open blinded end-point study. Int J Obstet Anesth. 2025;62. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.ijoa.2025.104361.","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ijoa.2025.104361"},{"issue":"3","key":"4034_CR14","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"6","DOI":"10.36303\/sajaa.3123","volume":"31","author":"M du Toit","year":"2025","unstructured":"du Toit M, Chetty S, Sankar K, Parker R, Retief FW. The prevalence of moderate-to-severe rebound pain after spinal caesarean section at Tygerberg Hospital following new analgesia guidelines implementation. SAJAA. 2025;31(3):6. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.36303\/sajaa.3123.","journal-title":"SAJAA"},{"key":"4034_CR15","unstructured":"Create a blocked randomisation list. 2015 [Available from: http:\/\/www.sealedenvelope.com\/simplerandomiser\/v1\/lists"},{"issue":"11","key":"4034_CR16","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1361","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jpain.2013.05.016","volume":"14","author":"J Rothaug","year":"2013","unstructured":"Rothaug J, Zaslansky R, Schwenkglenks M, Komann M, Allvin R, Backstr\u00f6m R, et al. Patients\u2019 Perception of Postoperative Pain Management: Validation of the International Pain Outcomes (IPO) Questionnaire. J Pain. 2013;14(11):1361\u201370. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.jpain.2013.05.016.","journal-title":"J Pain"},{"issue":"12","key":"4034_CR17","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1260","DOI":"10.4103\/ija.ija_1067_25","volume":"69","author":"AS Nair","year":"2025","unstructured":"Nair AS, Afshan G, Kubricht V, Chetty S, Jagannathan B. Factors influencing patient satisfaction in postoperative pain management: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Indian J Anaesth. 2025;69(12):1260\u201373. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.4103\/ija.ija_1067_25.","journal-title":"Indian J Anaesth"},{"issue":"4","key":"4034_CR18","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"332","DOI":"10.1097\/eja.0000000000002127","volume":"42","author":"OFC van den Bosch","year":"2025","unstructured":"van den Bosch OFC, Rijsdijk M, Rosier SE, van Baal L, Schaap TP, Sultan P, et al. 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. Eur J Anaesthesiol | EJA. 2025;42(4):332\u20139. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1097\/eja.0000000000002127.","journal-title":"Eur J Anaesthesiol | EJA"},{"issue":"2","key":"4034_CR19","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"123","DOI":"10.1016\/j.bpa.2023.01.001","volume":"37","author":"N Rawal","year":"2023","unstructured":"Rawal N. Intrathecal opioids for the management of post-operative pain. Best Pract Res Clin Anaesthesiol. 2023;37(2):123\u201332. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.bpa.2023.01.001.","journal-title":"Best Pract Res Clin Anaesthesiol"},{"issue":"1","key":"4034_CR20","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"329","DOI":"10.1186\/s12913-022-07696-x","volume":"22","author":"P Forget","year":"2022","unstructured":"Forget P, Patullo C, Hill D, Ambekar A, Baldacchino A, Cata J, et al. System-level policies on appropriate opioid use, a multi-stakeholder consensus. BMC Health Serv Res. 2022;22(1):329. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1186\/s12913-022-07696-x.","journal-title":"BMC Health Serv Res"},{"issue":"9","key":"4034_CR21","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"651","DOI":"10.4103\/ija.IJA_458_18","volume":"62","author":"P Bhatia","year":"2018","unstructured":"Bhatia P, Chhabra S. Physiological and anatomical changes of pregnancy: Implications for anaesthesia. Indian J Anaesth. 2018;62(9):651\u20137. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.4103\/ija.IJA_458_18.","journal-title":"Indian J Anaesth"}],"container-title":["BMC Anesthesiology"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/link.springer.com\/article\/10.1186\/s12871-026-04034-0","content-type":"text\/html","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/link.springer.com\/content\/pdf\/10.1186\/s12871-026-04034-0.pdf","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/link.springer.com\/content\/pdf\/10.1186\/s12871-026-04034-0.pdf","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2026,9,4]],"date-time":"2026-09-04T12:02:56Z","timestamp":1788523376000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/link.springer.com\/10.1186\/s12871-026-04034-0"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2026,6,23]]},"references-count":21,"journal-issue":{"issue":"1","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2026,12]]}},"alternative-id":["4034"],"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1186\/s12871-026-04034-0","relation":{},"ISSN":["1471-2253"],"issn-type":[{"value":"1471-2253","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2026,6,23]]},"assertion":[{"value":"1 April 2026","order":1,"name":"received","label":"Received","group":{"name":"ArticleHistory","label":"Article History"}},{"value":"15 June 2026","order":2,"name":"accepted","label":"Accepted","group":{"name":"ArticleHistory","label":"Article History"}},{"value":"23 June 2026","order":3,"name":"first_online","label":"First Online","group":{"name":"ArticleHistory","label":"Article History"}},{"value":"Ethical approval to conduct this study was granted by the Human Research Ethics Committee of the University of the Witwatersrand (M141181). The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki on Ethical Principles for Medical Research involving human subjects and Good Clinical Practice. Written informed consent was obtained from participants before enrolment.","order":1,"name":"Ethics","label":"Ethics approval and consent to participate","group":{"name":"EthicsHeading","label":"Declarations"}},{"value":"Not Applicable.","order":2,"name":"Ethics","label":"Consent for publication","group":{"name":"EthicsHeading","label":"Declarations"}},{"value":"SC has received honoraria, advisory board fees, or travel support from Adcock Ingram, Fresenius Kabi, Cipla, Pfizer, Viatris, Zydus, Hetero, Aspen, and Reckitt. PK receives compensation for Partners in Research and is the sole proprietor of Blueprint Analytics. FP declares that she has no competing interests.","order":3,"name":"Ethics","label":"Competing interests","group":{"name":"EthicsHeading","label":"Declarations"}}],"article-number":"549"}}