Cargando…

Fluoroscopic evaluation of the influence of needle gauge on epidural spread in caudal block

Caudal block has limited injectate distribution to the desired lumbar level due to the relatively long distance from the injection site and reduction in the volume of injectate due to leakage into the sacral foramen. The objective of this study was to investigate the influence of needle gauge on flu...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Sim, Woo Seog, Park, Hue Jung, Kwon, Ji Hye, Oh, Min Seok, Jung, Hyun Joo, Cho, Min Kyoung, Lee, Jin Young
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Wolters Kluwer Health 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6709147/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31145351
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000015896
_version_ 1783446142056398848
author Sim, Woo Seog
Park, Hue Jung
Kwon, Ji Hye
Oh, Min Seok
Jung, Hyun Joo
Cho, Min Kyoung
Lee, Jin Young
author_facet Sim, Woo Seog
Park, Hue Jung
Kwon, Ji Hye
Oh, Min Seok
Jung, Hyun Joo
Cho, Min Kyoung
Lee, Jin Young
author_sort Sim, Woo Seog
collection PubMed
description Caudal block has limited injectate distribution to the desired lumbar level due to the relatively long distance from the injection site and reduction in the volume of injectate due to leakage into the sacral foramen. The objective of this study was to investigate the influence of needle gauge on fluoroscopic epidural spread and to assess the correlation between the spread level and analgesic efficacy in patients undergoing caudal block. We retrospectively analyzed data from 80 patients who received caudal block for lower back and radicular pain. We categorized patients based on the epidural needle gauge used into group A (23 gauge), group B (20 gauge), and group C (17 gauge). Fluoroscopic image of the final level of contrast injected through the caudal needle and pain scores before the block and 30 minutes after the block recorded using a numerical rating scale, were evaluated. Of the 80 patients assessed for eligibility, 7 were excluded. Thus, a total of 73 patients were finally analyzed. Age, sex, body mass index, diagnosis, lesion level, lesion severity, and duration of pain did not differ among the 3 groups. All patients showed cephalic spread of contrast. Contrast spread beyond L5 was seen in 26.9% of patients in group A, 41.7% in group B, 39.1% in group C, and 35.6% overall; there was no significant difference among the groups (P = .517). Analgesic efficacy was not significantly different among the groups (P = .336). The needle gauge did not influence the level of epidural spread or analgesic efficacy in caudal block.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6709147
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Wolters Kluwer Health
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-67091472019-10-01 Fluoroscopic evaluation of the influence of needle gauge on epidural spread in caudal block Sim, Woo Seog Park, Hue Jung Kwon, Ji Hye Oh, Min Seok Jung, Hyun Joo Cho, Min Kyoung Lee, Jin Young Medicine (Baltimore) Research Article Caudal block has limited injectate distribution to the desired lumbar level due to the relatively long distance from the injection site and reduction in the volume of injectate due to leakage into the sacral foramen. The objective of this study was to investigate the influence of needle gauge on fluoroscopic epidural spread and to assess the correlation between the spread level and analgesic efficacy in patients undergoing caudal block. We retrospectively analyzed data from 80 patients who received caudal block for lower back and radicular pain. We categorized patients based on the epidural needle gauge used into group A (23 gauge), group B (20 gauge), and group C (17 gauge). Fluoroscopic image of the final level of contrast injected through the caudal needle and pain scores before the block and 30 minutes after the block recorded using a numerical rating scale, were evaluated. Of the 80 patients assessed for eligibility, 7 were excluded. Thus, a total of 73 patients were finally analyzed. Age, sex, body mass index, diagnosis, lesion level, lesion severity, and duration of pain did not differ among the 3 groups. All patients showed cephalic spread of contrast. Contrast spread beyond L5 was seen in 26.9% of patients in group A, 41.7% in group B, 39.1% in group C, and 35.6% overall; there was no significant difference among the groups (P = .517). Analgesic efficacy was not significantly different among the groups (P = .336). The needle gauge did not influence the level of epidural spread or analgesic efficacy in caudal block. Wolters Kluwer Health 2019-05-31 /pmc/articles/PMC6709147/ /pubmed/31145351 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000015896 Text en Copyright © 2019 the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 (CCBY), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
spellingShingle Research Article
Sim, Woo Seog
Park, Hue Jung
Kwon, Ji Hye
Oh, Min Seok
Jung, Hyun Joo
Cho, Min Kyoung
Lee, Jin Young
Fluoroscopic evaluation of the influence of needle gauge on epidural spread in caudal block
title Fluoroscopic evaluation of the influence of needle gauge on epidural spread in caudal block
title_full Fluoroscopic evaluation of the influence of needle gauge on epidural spread in caudal block
title_fullStr Fluoroscopic evaluation of the influence of needle gauge on epidural spread in caudal block
title_full_unstemmed Fluoroscopic evaluation of the influence of needle gauge on epidural spread in caudal block
title_short Fluoroscopic evaluation of the influence of needle gauge on epidural spread in caudal block
title_sort fluoroscopic evaluation of the influence of needle gauge on epidural spread in caudal block
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6709147/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31145351
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000015896
work_keys_str_mv AT simwooseog fluoroscopicevaluationoftheinfluenceofneedlegaugeonepiduralspreadincaudalblock
AT parkhuejung fluoroscopicevaluationoftheinfluenceofneedlegaugeonepiduralspreadincaudalblock
AT kwonjihye fluoroscopicevaluationoftheinfluenceofneedlegaugeonepiduralspreadincaudalblock
AT ohminseok fluoroscopicevaluationoftheinfluenceofneedlegaugeonepiduralspreadincaudalblock
AT junghyunjoo fluoroscopicevaluationoftheinfluenceofneedlegaugeonepiduralspreadincaudalblock
AT chominkyoung fluoroscopicevaluationoftheinfluenceofneedlegaugeonepiduralspreadincaudalblock
AT leejinyoung fluoroscopicevaluationoftheinfluenceofneedlegaugeonepiduralspreadincaudalblock