Cargando…

A randomized double-blind comparison of the double-space technique versus the single-space technique in combined spinal-epidural anesthesia for cesarean section

BACKGROUND: Combined spinal-epidural anesthesia (CSEA) can be performed with either a single-space technique or a double-space technique for cesarean section. We performed a double-blind randomized controlled study to compare the effect of the double-space technique with that of the single-space tec...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Chun, Eun Hee, Cho, Sooyoung, Woo, Jae Hee, Kim, Youn Jin
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6993309/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32000674
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12871-020-0948-7
_version_ 1783493003912937472
author Chun, Eun Hee
Cho, Sooyoung
Woo, Jae Hee
Kim, Youn Jin
author_facet Chun, Eun Hee
Cho, Sooyoung
Woo, Jae Hee
Kim, Youn Jin
author_sort Chun, Eun Hee
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Combined spinal-epidural anesthesia (CSEA) can be performed with either a single-space technique or a double-space technique for cesarean section. We performed a double-blind randomized controlled study to compare the effect of the double-space technique with that of the single-space technique on sensory block level and side effects. METHODS: Parturients undergoing elective cesarean section under regional anesthesia were randomized to receive CSEA with either the double-space technique (double group, n = 20) or the single-space technique (single group, n = 20). In the double group, an epidural catheter was inserted at the L1–2 interspace, and dural puncture was performed at the L3–4 interspace. In the single group, the procedure was performed at the L3–4 interspace using the needle-through-needle technique. RESULTS: There were no differences in time to readiness or intraoperative level of sensory block between the two groups. The postoperative sensory level was maintained at a higher level in the double group than in the single group (1 h postoperatively, P = 0.029; 6 h postoperatively, P = 0.016). There was no difference between the two groups in terms of side effects. The parturient satisfaction scores 48 h postoperatively were significantly different between groups (9.5 in the double group vs. 8 in the single group, P = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that there were no differences in intraoperative variables between the double-space technique and the single-space technique for CSEA. However, double-space CSEA for cesarean section may be beneficial for controlling postoperative pain and improving parturient satisfaction. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was retrospectively registered at https://cris.nih.go.kr under the trial ID KCT0002514. Date of registration: October 27, 2017.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6993309
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-69933092020-02-04 A randomized double-blind comparison of the double-space technique versus the single-space technique in combined spinal-epidural anesthesia for cesarean section Chun, Eun Hee Cho, Sooyoung Woo, Jae Hee Kim, Youn Jin BMC Anesthesiol Research Article BACKGROUND: Combined spinal-epidural anesthesia (CSEA) can be performed with either a single-space technique or a double-space technique for cesarean section. We performed a double-blind randomized controlled study to compare the effect of the double-space technique with that of the single-space technique on sensory block level and side effects. METHODS: Parturients undergoing elective cesarean section under regional anesthesia were randomized to receive CSEA with either the double-space technique (double group, n = 20) or the single-space technique (single group, n = 20). In the double group, an epidural catheter was inserted at the L1–2 interspace, and dural puncture was performed at the L3–4 interspace. In the single group, the procedure was performed at the L3–4 interspace using the needle-through-needle technique. RESULTS: There were no differences in time to readiness or intraoperative level of sensory block between the two groups. The postoperative sensory level was maintained at a higher level in the double group than in the single group (1 h postoperatively, P = 0.029; 6 h postoperatively, P = 0.016). There was no difference between the two groups in terms of side effects. The parturient satisfaction scores 48 h postoperatively were significantly different between groups (9.5 in the double group vs. 8 in the single group, P = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that there were no differences in intraoperative variables between the double-space technique and the single-space technique for CSEA. However, double-space CSEA for cesarean section may be beneficial for controlling postoperative pain and improving parturient satisfaction. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was retrospectively registered at https://cris.nih.go.kr under the trial ID KCT0002514. Date of registration: October 27, 2017. BioMed Central 2020-01-30 /pmc/articles/PMC6993309/ /pubmed/32000674 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12871-020-0948-7 Text en © The Author(s). 2020 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Chun, Eun Hee
Cho, Sooyoung
Woo, Jae Hee
Kim, Youn Jin
A randomized double-blind comparison of the double-space technique versus the single-space technique in combined spinal-epidural anesthesia for cesarean section
title A randomized double-blind comparison of the double-space technique versus the single-space technique in combined spinal-epidural anesthesia for cesarean section
title_full A randomized double-blind comparison of the double-space technique versus the single-space technique in combined spinal-epidural anesthesia for cesarean section
title_fullStr A randomized double-blind comparison of the double-space technique versus the single-space technique in combined spinal-epidural anesthesia for cesarean section
title_full_unstemmed A randomized double-blind comparison of the double-space technique versus the single-space technique in combined spinal-epidural anesthesia for cesarean section
title_short A randomized double-blind comparison of the double-space technique versus the single-space technique in combined spinal-epidural anesthesia for cesarean section
title_sort randomized double-blind comparison of the double-space technique versus the single-space technique in combined spinal-epidural anesthesia for cesarean section
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6993309/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32000674
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12871-020-0948-7
work_keys_str_mv AT chuneunhee arandomizeddoubleblindcomparisonofthedoublespacetechniqueversusthesinglespacetechniqueincombinedspinalepiduralanesthesiaforcesareansection
AT chosooyoung arandomizeddoubleblindcomparisonofthedoublespacetechniqueversusthesinglespacetechniqueincombinedspinalepiduralanesthesiaforcesareansection
AT woojaehee arandomizeddoubleblindcomparisonofthedoublespacetechniqueversusthesinglespacetechniqueincombinedspinalepiduralanesthesiaforcesareansection
AT kimyounjin arandomizeddoubleblindcomparisonofthedoublespacetechniqueversusthesinglespacetechniqueincombinedspinalepiduralanesthesiaforcesareansection
AT chuneunhee randomizeddoubleblindcomparisonofthedoublespacetechniqueversusthesinglespacetechniqueincombinedspinalepiduralanesthesiaforcesareansection
AT chosooyoung randomizeddoubleblindcomparisonofthedoublespacetechniqueversusthesinglespacetechniqueincombinedspinalepiduralanesthesiaforcesareansection
AT woojaehee randomizeddoubleblindcomparisonofthedoublespacetechniqueversusthesinglespacetechniqueincombinedspinalepiduralanesthesiaforcesareansection
AT kimyounjin randomizeddoubleblindcomparisonofthedoublespacetechniqueversusthesinglespacetechniqueincombinedspinalepiduralanesthesiaforcesareansection