Cargando…
Straight versus flex back: Does it matter in spinal anaesthesia?
PURPOSE: It is sometimes difficult for our patients to acquire recommended flexion of their back to perform subarachnoid block upon them. The aim of this study was to find out the degree of procedural success and patient preference when subarachnoid blocks were performed on patients with suboptimal...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd
2012
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3425286/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22923825 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0019-5049.98772 |
_version_ | 1782241356818677760 |
---|---|
author | Biswas, Binay Kumar Agarwal, Bikash Bhattarai, Balakrishna Dey, Samarjit Bhattacharyya, Prithwish |
author_facet | Biswas, Binay Kumar Agarwal, Bikash Bhattarai, Balakrishna Dey, Samarjit Bhattacharyya, Prithwish |
author_sort | Biswas, Binay Kumar |
collection | PubMed |
description | PURPOSE: It is sometimes difficult for our patients to acquire recommended flexion of their back to perform subarachnoid block upon them. The aim of this study was to find out the degree of procedural success and patient preference when subarachnoid blocks were performed on patients with suboptimal flexion of the back. METHODS: Subarachnoid blocks were performed on 160 adult patients from both sexes without any spinal deformity. Procedures were performed with patients in the lateral or seated position with the back either straight or flexed. This approach divided the study population into 4 equal groups: Lateral with back straight (LS) or flexed (LF) and seated with back straight (SS) or flexed (SF). The primary endpoint was correct needle placement. Numbers of attempts, needle redirections and patients’ preferred posture were determined to compare the outcome in different groups. RESULTS: For both positions, the overall success rates were 95% and 100% in patients who had straight or flexed back, respectively (P=0.81). In the lateral position, significantly more patients of the LF group (40) than those of the LS group (32) had successful placement of spinal needle at first attempt (P=0.03). Altogether, 34 and 21 patients in the SS and SF groups, respectively, required cephalad redirections of the needle (P=0.003). Most patients preferred the straight back position (69.7–88%). CONCLUSION: With a higher preference by patients for the straight back posture, the overall success rate of correct spinal needle placement was comparable among the groups who had their back placed in a straight or in a flexed posture for subarachnoid block. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-3425286 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2012 |
publisher | Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-34252862012-08-24 Straight versus flex back: Does it matter in spinal anaesthesia? Biswas, Binay Kumar Agarwal, Bikash Bhattarai, Balakrishna Dey, Samarjit Bhattacharyya, Prithwish Indian J Anaesth Clinical Investigation PURPOSE: It is sometimes difficult for our patients to acquire recommended flexion of their back to perform subarachnoid block upon them. The aim of this study was to find out the degree of procedural success and patient preference when subarachnoid blocks were performed on patients with suboptimal flexion of the back. METHODS: Subarachnoid blocks were performed on 160 adult patients from both sexes without any spinal deformity. Procedures were performed with patients in the lateral or seated position with the back either straight or flexed. This approach divided the study population into 4 equal groups: Lateral with back straight (LS) or flexed (LF) and seated with back straight (SS) or flexed (SF). The primary endpoint was correct needle placement. Numbers of attempts, needle redirections and patients’ preferred posture were determined to compare the outcome in different groups. RESULTS: For both positions, the overall success rates were 95% and 100% in patients who had straight or flexed back, respectively (P=0.81). In the lateral position, significantly more patients of the LF group (40) than those of the LS group (32) had successful placement of spinal needle at first attempt (P=0.03). Altogether, 34 and 21 patients in the SS and SF groups, respectively, required cephalad redirections of the needle (P=0.003). Most patients preferred the straight back position (69.7–88%). CONCLUSION: With a higher preference by patients for the straight back posture, the overall success rate of correct spinal needle placement was comparable among the groups who had their back placed in a straight or in a flexed posture for subarachnoid block. Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2012 /pmc/articles/PMC3425286/ /pubmed/22923825 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0019-5049.98772 Text en Copyright: © Indian Journal of Anaesthesia http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0 This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Clinical Investigation Biswas, Binay Kumar Agarwal, Bikash Bhattarai, Balakrishna Dey, Samarjit Bhattacharyya, Prithwish Straight versus flex back: Does it matter in spinal anaesthesia? |
title | Straight versus flex back: Does it matter in spinal anaesthesia? |
title_full | Straight versus flex back: Does it matter in spinal anaesthesia? |
title_fullStr | Straight versus flex back: Does it matter in spinal anaesthesia? |
title_full_unstemmed | Straight versus flex back: Does it matter in spinal anaesthesia? |
title_short | Straight versus flex back: Does it matter in spinal anaesthesia? |
title_sort | straight versus flex back: does it matter in spinal anaesthesia? |
topic | Clinical Investigation |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3425286/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22923825 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0019-5049.98772 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT biswasbinaykumar straightversusflexbackdoesitmatterinspinalanaesthesia AT agarwalbikash straightversusflexbackdoesitmatterinspinalanaesthesia AT bhattaraibalakrishna straightversusflexbackdoesitmatterinspinalanaesthesia AT deysamarjit straightversusflexbackdoesitmatterinspinalanaesthesia AT bhattacharyyaprithwish straightversusflexbackdoesitmatterinspinalanaesthesia |