Cargando…

Comparison of loss of resistance technique between Epidrum® and conventional method for identifying the epidural space

BACKGROUND: Epidrum® is a recently developed, air operated, loss of resistance (LOR) device for identifying the epidural space. We investigated the usefulness of Epidrum® by comparing it with the conventional LOR technique for identifying the epidural space. METHODS: One hundred eight American Socie...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kim, Seon Wook, Kim, Young Mi, Kim, Soo Hwan, Chung, Mi Hwa, Choi, Young Ryong, Choi, Eun Mi
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: The Korean Society of Anesthesiologists 2012
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3337377/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22558497
http://dx.doi.org/10.4097/kjae.2012.62.4.322
_version_ 1782231065211961344
author Kim, Seon Wook
Kim, Young Mi
Kim, Soo Hwan
Chung, Mi Hwa
Choi, Young Ryong
Choi, Eun Mi
author_facet Kim, Seon Wook
Kim, Young Mi
Kim, Soo Hwan
Chung, Mi Hwa
Choi, Young Ryong
Choi, Eun Mi
author_sort Kim, Seon Wook
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Epidrum® is a recently developed, air operated, loss of resistance (LOR) device for identifying the epidural space. We investigated the usefulness of Epidrum® by comparing it with the conventional LOR technique for identifying the epidural space. METHODS: One hundred eight American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I or II patients between the ages of 17 and 68 years old and who were scheduled for elective surgery under combined spinal-epidural anesthesia were enrolled in this study. The patients were randomized into two groups: one group received epidural anesthesia by the conventional LOR technique (C group) and the second group received epidural anesthesia using Epidrum® (ED group). While performing epidural anesthesia, the values of variables were recorded, including the number of failures, more than 2 attempts, the incidence of dural puncture, the time needed to locate the epidural space, the distance from the skin to the epidural space and ease of performance, and the satisfaction scores. RESULTS: The ED group showed a lower failure rate, fewer cases of more than 2 attempts, a lesser time to identify the epidural space, and better ease and satisfaction scores of procedure than the C group, with statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: Using Epidrum® compared to the conventional LOR technique is an easy, rapid, and reliable method for identifying the epidural space.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3337377
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2012
publisher The Korean Society of Anesthesiologists
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-33373772012-05-03 Comparison of loss of resistance technique between Epidrum® and conventional method for identifying the epidural space Kim, Seon Wook Kim, Young Mi Kim, Soo Hwan Chung, Mi Hwa Choi, Young Ryong Choi, Eun Mi Korean J Anesthesiol Clinical Research Article BACKGROUND: Epidrum® is a recently developed, air operated, loss of resistance (LOR) device for identifying the epidural space. We investigated the usefulness of Epidrum® by comparing it with the conventional LOR technique for identifying the epidural space. METHODS: One hundred eight American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I or II patients between the ages of 17 and 68 years old and who were scheduled for elective surgery under combined spinal-epidural anesthesia were enrolled in this study. The patients were randomized into two groups: one group received epidural anesthesia by the conventional LOR technique (C group) and the second group received epidural anesthesia using Epidrum® (ED group). While performing epidural anesthesia, the values of variables were recorded, including the number of failures, more than 2 attempts, the incidence of dural puncture, the time needed to locate the epidural space, the distance from the skin to the epidural space and ease of performance, and the satisfaction scores. RESULTS: The ED group showed a lower failure rate, fewer cases of more than 2 attempts, a lesser time to identify the epidural space, and better ease and satisfaction scores of procedure than the C group, with statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: Using Epidrum® compared to the conventional LOR technique is an easy, rapid, and reliable method for identifying the epidural space. The Korean Society of Anesthesiologists 2012-04 2012-04-23 /pmc/articles/PMC3337377/ /pubmed/22558497 http://dx.doi.org/10.4097/kjae.2012.62.4.322 Text en Copyright © the Korean Society of Anesthesiologists, 2012 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/), which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Clinical Research Article
Kim, Seon Wook
Kim, Young Mi
Kim, Soo Hwan
Chung, Mi Hwa
Choi, Young Ryong
Choi, Eun Mi
Comparison of loss of resistance technique between Epidrum® and conventional method for identifying the epidural space
title Comparison of loss of resistance technique between Epidrum® and conventional method for identifying the epidural space
title_full Comparison of loss of resistance technique between Epidrum® and conventional method for identifying the epidural space
title_fullStr Comparison of loss of resistance technique between Epidrum® and conventional method for identifying the epidural space
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of loss of resistance technique between Epidrum® and conventional method for identifying the epidural space
title_short Comparison of loss of resistance technique between Epidrum® and conventional method for identifying the epidural space
title_sort comparison of loss of resistance technique between epidrum® and conventional method for identifying the epidural space
topic Clinical Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3337377/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22558497
http://dx.doi.org/10.4097/kjae.2012.62.4.322
work_keys_str_mv AT kimseonwook comparisonoflossofresistancetechniquebetweenepidrumandconventionalmethodforidentifyingtheepiduralspace
AT kimyoungmi comparisonoflossofresistancetechniquebetweenepidrumandconventionalmethodforidentifyingtheepiduralspace
AT kimsoohwan comparisonoflossofresistancetechniquebetweenepidrumandconventionalmethodforidentifyingtheepiduralspace
AT chungmihwa comparisonoflossofresistancetechniquebetweenepidrumandconventionalmethodforidentifyingtheepiduralspace
AT choiyoungryong comparisonoflossofresistancetechniquebetweenepidrumandconventionalmethodforidentifyingtheepiduralspace
AT choieunmi comparisonoflossofresistancetechniquebetweenepidrumandconventionalmethodforidentifyingtheepiduralspace