Cargando…

Pre-procedure ultrasound-guided paramedian spinal anaesthesia at L5–S1: Is this better than landmark-guided midline approach? A randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Routine use of pre-procedural ultrasound guided midline approach has not shown to improve success rate in administering subarachnoid block. The study hypothesis was that the routine use of pre-procedural (not real time) ultrasound-guided paramedian spinals at L5-S1 interspace co...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Srinivasan, Karthikeyan Kallidaikurichi, Leo, Anne-Marie, Iohom, Gabriella, Loughnane, Frank, Lee, Peter J
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5787891/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29416151
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/ija.IJA_448_17
_version_ 1783296013564379136
author Srinivasan, Karthikeyan Kallidaikurichi
Leo, Anne-Marie
Iohom, Gabriella
Loughnane, Frank
Lee, Peter J
author_facet Srinivasan, Karthikeyan Kallidaikurichi
Leo, Anne-Marie
Iohom, Gabriella
Loughnane, Frank
Lee, Peter J
author_sort Srinivasan, Karthikeyan Kallidaikurichi
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Routine use of pre-procedural ultrasound guided midline approach has not shown to improve success rate in administering subarachnoid block. The study hypothesis was that the routine use of pre-procedural (not real time) ultrasound-guided paramedian spinals at L5-S1 interspace could reduce the number of passes (i.e., withdrawal and redirection of spinal needle without exiting the skin) required to enter the subarachnoid space when compared to the conventional landmark-guided midline approach. METHODS: After local ethics approval, 120 consenting patients scheduled for elective total joint replacements (Hip and Knee) were randomised into either Group C where conventional midline approach with palpated landmarks was used or Group P where pre-procedural ultrasound was used to perform subarachnoid block by paramedian approach at L5-S1 interspace (real time ultrasound guidance was not used). RESULTS: There was no difference in primary outcome (difference in number of passes) between the two groups. Similarly there was no difference in the number of attempts (i.e., the number of times the spinal needle was withdrawn from the skin and reinserted). The first pass success rates (1 attempt and 1 pass) was significantly greater in Group C compared to Group P [43% vs. 22%, P = 0.02]. CONCLUSION: Routine use of paramedian spinal anaesthesia at L5-S1 interspace, guided by pre-procedure ultrasound, in patients undergoing lower limb joint arthroplasties did not reduce the number of passes or attempts needed to achieve successful dural puncture.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5787891
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-57878912018-02-07 Pre-procedure ultrasound-guided paramedian spinal anaesthesia at L5–S1: Is this better than landmark-guided midline approach? A randomised controlled trial Srinivasan, Karthikeyan Kallidaikurichi Leo, Anne-Marie Iohom, Gabriella Loughnane, Frank Lee, Peter J Indian J Anaesth Original Article BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Routine use of pre-procedural ultrasound guided midline approach has not shown to improve success rate in administering subarachnoid block. The study hypothesis was that the routine use of pre-procedural (not real time) ultrasound-guided paramedian spinals at L5-S1 interspace could reduce the number of passes (i.e., withdrawal and redirection of spinal needle without exiting the skin) required to enter the subarachnoid space when compared to the conventional landmark-guided midline approach. METHODS: After local ethics approval, 120 consenting patients scheduled for elective total joint replacements (Hip and Knee) were randomised into either Group C where conventional midline approach with palpated landmarks was used or Group P where pre-procedural ultrasound was used to perform subarachnoid block by paramedian approach at L5-S1 interspace (real time ultrasound guidance was not used). RESULTS: There was no difference in primary outcome (difference in number of passes) between the two groups. Similarly there was no difference in the number of attempts (i.e., the number of times the spinal needle was withdrawn from the skin and reinserted). The first pass success rates (1 attempt and 1 pass) was significantly greater in Group C compared to Group P [43% vs. 22%, P = 0.02]. CONCLUSION: Routine use of paramedian spinal anaesthesia at L5-S1 interspace, guided by pre-procedure ultrasound, in patients undergoing lower limb joint arthroplasties did not reduce the number of passes or attempts needed to achieve successful dural puncture. Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2018-01 /pmc/articles/PMC5787891/ /pubmed/29416151 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/ija.IJA_448_17 Text en Copyright: © 2018 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-ShareAlike 3.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as the author is credited and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.
spellingShingle Original Article
Srinivasan, Karthikeyan Kallidaikurichi
Leo, Anne-Marie
Iohom, Gabriella
Loughnane, Frank
Lee, Peter J
Pre-procedure ultrasound-guided paramedian spinal anaesthesia at L5–S1: Is this better than landmark-guided midline approach? A randomised controlled trial
title Pre-procedure ultrasound-guided paramedian spinal anaesthesia at L5–S1: Is this better than landmark-guided midline approach? A randomised controlled trial
title_full Pre-procedure ultrasound-guided paramedian spinal anaesthesia at L5–S1: Is this better than landmark-guided midline approach? A randomised controlled trial
title_fullStr Pre-procedure ultrasound-guided paramedian spinal anaesthesia at L5–S1: Is this better than landmark-guided midline approach? A randomised controlled trial
title_full_unstemmed Pre-procedure ultrasound-guided paramedian spinal anaesthesia at L5–S1: Is this better than landmark-guided midline approach? A randomised controlled trial
title_short Pre-procedure ultrasound-guided paramedian spinal anaesthesia at L5–S1: Is this better than landmark-guided midline approach? A randomised controlled trial
title_sort pre-procedure ultrasound-guided paramedian spinal anaesthesia at l5–s1: is this better than landmark-guided midline approach? a randomised controlled trial
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5787891/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29416151
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/ija.IJA_448_17
work_keys_str_mv AT srinivasankarthikeyankallidaikurichi preprocedureultrasoundguidedparamedianspinalanaesthesiaatl5s1isthisbetterthanlandmarkguidedmidlineapproacharandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT leoannemarie preprocedureultrasoundguidedparamedianspinalanaesthesiaatl5s1isthisbetterthanlandmarkguidedmidlineapproacharandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT iohomgabriella preprocedureultrasoundguidedparamedianspinalanaesthesiaatl5s1isthisbetterthanlandmarkguidedmidlineapproacharandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT loughnanefrank preprocedureultrasoundguidedparamedianspinalanaesthesiaatl5s1isthisbetterthanlandmarkguidedmidlineapproacharandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT leepeterj preprocedureultrasoundguidedparamedianspinalanaesthesiaatl5s1isthisbetterthanlandmarkguidedmidlineapproacharandomisedcontrolledtrial