Comparison of Epidrum, Epi-Jet, and Loss of Resistance syringe techniques for identifying the epidural space in obstetric patients

Identifying the epidural space is essential during epidural anesthesia (EA). Pressure of the epidural space in pregnancy is higher than that in nonpregnant woman. Loss of resistance (LOR) method is the most commonly preferred method for identifying the epidural space. Epidrum and Epi-Jet are recentl...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Nigerian journal of clinical practice 2017-08, Vol.20 (8), p.992-997
Hauptverfasser: Kartal, S, Kösem, B, Kılınç, H, Köşker, H, Karabayırlı, S, Çimen, N K, Demircioğlu, R I
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 997
container_issue 8
container_start_page 992
container_title Nigerian journal of clinical practice
container_volume 20
creator Kartal, S
Kösem, B
Kılınç, H
Köşker, H
Karabayırlı, S
Çimen, N K
Demircioğlu, R I
description Identifying the epidural space is essential during epidural anesthesia (EA). Pressure of the epidural space in pregnancy is higher than that in nonpregnant woman. Loss of resistance (LOR) method is the most commonly preferred method for identifying the epidural space. Epidrum and Epi-Jet are recently innovated supporting devices that facilitate identifying process for epidural space. In this study we aimed to compare Epidrum, Epi-Jet, and LOR methods in identifying the epidural space, feasibility of technique. Two hundred and forty pregnant women who were scheduled for caesarian section surgery under lumbar EA or combined spinal epidural anesthesia (CSEA) were randomized into three groups (Group I Epidrum, n = 80), Group II (Epi-Jet, n = 80), and Group III (LOR, n = 80). We recorded the time required to identify the epidural space and deflation of Epidrum balloon and Epi-Jet syringe, number of attempts, additional methods used to identify epidural space, usefulness of methods, accuracy of identification of epidural space, and outcomes of epidural catheterization. There were no significant differences between the groups with respect to demographic data, duration of deflation of Epidrum balloon and Epi-Jet syringe and distance between skin and epidural space. The mean time required to enter epidural space in Group I was shorter than that in Group II (P = 0.031). Feasibility of Epi-Jet was easier than that of Epidrum (P = 0.015). Number of uncertainties of epidural space identification was higher in Group I than that in Group II (P = 0.009). Also, the requirement for LOR to confirm epidural space and failure rates was higher in Group I than Group II (P < 0.001). We suggest that Epi-Jet is superior to Epidrum in pregnant patients in terms of clarity of epidural space identification, usefulness, and success rates of EA or CSEA.
doi_str_mv 10.4103/1119-3077.214366
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>gale_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1937757445</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A504290462</galeid><sourcerecordid>A504290462</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c397t-9343948802e54c6176a4cd0f72719631dabd0b0c10856b79692e8667966c36eb3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNptkU1v3CAQhjk0ymfvPVVIlaIe4i0YDOYYrdKPaKVKVXtGGI-zVDY4gA977S8v1qZRI0UcZjTzvAPDi9A7SjacEvaJUqoqRqTc1JQzId6g8-fSGbpI6TchQrGWnqKzum0VbTg_R3-2YZpNdCl4HAZ8N7s-LtPNmlT3kG-w8T3ehZTW7g9ILmXjLeB0iM4_AM5g9949LpDwECJ2PfjshkPp4bwHDGXeEs2I02yKypVLupQhR2fxbLIrdLpCJ4MZE7x9ipfo1-e7n9uv1e77l2_b211lmZK5UowzxduW1NBwK6gUhtueDLKWVAlGe9P1pCOWkrYRnVRC1dAKURJhmYCOXaKPx7lzDOuDs55csjCOxkNYkqaKSdlIzpuCfjiiD2YE7fwQcjR2xfVtQ3itCBd1oTavUOX0MDkbPAyu1F8Irv8T7MGMeZ_CuGQXfHoJkiNoY_n6CIOeo5tMPGhK9Oq2Xq3Vq7X66HaRvH_abukm6J8F_6xmfwEigKSg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1937757445</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparison of Epidrum, Epi-Jet, and Loss of Resistance syringe techniques for identifying the epidural space in obstetric patients</title><source>Open Access: African Journals Online</source><source>EZB Electronic Journals Library</source><creator>Kartal, S ; Kösem, B ; Kılınç, H ; Köşker, H ; Karabayırlı, S ; Çimen, N K ; Demircioğlu, R I</creator><creatorcontrib>Kartal, S ; Kösem, B ; Kılınç, H ; Köşker, H ; Karabayırlı, S ; Çimen, N K ; Demircioğlu, R I</creatorcontrib><description>Identifying the epidural space is essential during epidural anesthesia (EA). Pressure of the epidural space in pregnancy is higher than that in nonpregnant woman. Loss of resistance (LOR) method is the most commonly preferred method for identifying the epidural space. Epidrum and Epi-Jet are recently innovated supporting devices that facilitate identifying process for epidural space. In this study we aimed to compare Epidrum, Epi-Jet, and LOR methods in identifying the epidural space, feasibility of technique. Two hundred and forty pregnant women who were scheduled for caesarian section surgery under lumbar EA or combined spinal epidural anesthesia (CSEA) were randomized into three groups (Group I Epidrum, n = 80), Group II (Epi-Jet, n = 80), and Group III (LOR, n = 80). We recorded the time required to identify the epidural space and deflation of Epidrum balloon and Epi-Jet syringe, number of attempts, additional methods used to identify epidural space, usefulness of methods, accuracy of identification of epidural space, and outcomes of epidural catheterization. There were no significant differences between the groups with respect to demographic data, duration of deflation of Epidrum balloon and Epi-Jet syringe and distance between skin and epidural space. The mean time required to enter epidural space in Group I was shorter than that in Group II (P = 0.031). Feasibility of Epi-Jet was easier than that of Epidrum (P = 0.015). Number of uncertainties of epidural space identification was higher in Group I than that in Group II (P = 0.009). Also, the requirement for LOR to confirm epidural space and failure rates was higher in Group I than Group II (P &lt; 0.001). We suggest that Epi-Jet is superior to Epidrum in pregnant patients in terms of clarity of epidural space identification, usefulness, and success rates of EA or CSEA.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1119-3077</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.4103/1119-3077.214366</identifier><identifier>PMID: 28891544</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>India: Medknow Publications and Media Pvt. Ltd</publisher><subject>Obstetrical research ; Physiological aspects ; Spinal canal ; Syringes</subject><ispartof>Nigerian journal of clinical practice, 2017-08, Vol.20 (8), p.992-997</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2017 Medknow Publications and Media Pvt. Ltd.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c397t-9343948802e54c6176a4cd0f72719631dabd0b0c10856b79692e8667966c36eb3</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28891544$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Kartal, S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kösem, B</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kılınç, H</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Köşker, H</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Karabayırlı, S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Çimen, N K</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Demircioğlu, R I</creatorcontrib><title>Comparison of Epidrum, Epi-Jet, and Loss of Resistance syringe techniques for identifying the epidural space in obstetric patients</title><title>Nigerian journal of clinical practice</title><addtitle>Niger J Clin Pract</addtitle><description>Identifying the epidural space is essential during epidural anesthesia (EA). Pressure of the epidural space in pregnancy is higher than that in nonpregnant woman. Loss of resistance (LOR) method is the most commonly preferred method for identifying the epidural space. Epidrum and Epi-Jet are recently innovated supporting devices that facilitate identifying process for epidural space. In this study we aimed to compare Epidrum, Epi-Jet, and LOR methods in identifying the epidural space, feasibility of technique. Two hundred and forty pregnant women who were scheduled for caesarian section surgery under lumbar EA or combined spinal epidural anesthesia (CSEA) were randomized into three groups (Group I Epidrum, n = 80), Group II (Epi-Jet, n = 80), and Group III (LOR, n = 80). We recorded the time required to identify the epidural space and deflation of Epidrum balloon and Epi-Jet syringe, number of attempts, additional methods used to identify epidural space, usefulness of methods, accuracy of identification of epidural space, and outcomes of epidural catheterization. There were no significant differences between the groups with respect to demographic data, duration of deflation of Epidrum balloon and Epi-Jet syringe and distance between skin and epidural space. The mean time required to enter epidural space in Group I was shorter than that in Group II (P = 0.031). Feasibility of Epi-Jet was easier than that of Epidrum (P = 0.015). Number of uncertainties of epidural space identification was higher in Group I than that in Group II (P = 0.009). Also, the requirement for LOR to confirm epidural space and failure rates was higher in Group I than Group II (P &lt; 0.001). We suggest that Epi-Jet is superior to Epidrum in pregnant patients in terms of clarity of epidural space identification, usefulness, and success rates of EA or CSEA.</description><subject>Obstetrical research</subject><subject>Physiological aspects</subject><subject>Spinal canal</subject><subject>Syringes</subject><issn>1119-3077</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNptkU1v3CAQhjk0ymfvPVVIlaIe4i0YDOYYrdKPaKVKVXtGGI-zVDY4gA977S8v1qZRI0UcZjTzvAPDi9A7SjacEvaJUqoqRqTc1JQzId6g8-fSGbpI6TchQrGWnqKzum0VbTg_R3-2YZpNdCl4HAZ8N7s-LtPNmlT3kG-w8T3ehZTW7g9ILmXjLeB0iM4_AM5g9949LpDwECJ2PfjshkPp4bwHDGXeEs2I02yKypVLupQhR2fxbLIrdLpCJ4MZE7x9ipfo1-e7n9uv1e77l2_b211lmZK5UowzxduW1NBwK6gUhtueDLKWVAlGe9P1pCOWkrYRnVRC1dAKURJhmYCOXaKPx7lzDOuDs55csjCOxkNYkqaKSdlIzpuCfjiiD2YE7fwQcjR2xfVtQ3itCBd1oTavUOX0MDkbPAyu1F8Irv8T7MGMeZ_CuGQXfHoJkiNoY_n6CIOeo5tMPGhK9Oq2Xq3Vq7X66HaRvH_abukm6J8F_6xmfwEigKSg</recordid><startdate>20170801</startdate><enddate>20170801</enddate><creator>Kartal, S</creator><creator>Kösem, B</creator><creator>Kılınç, H</creator><creator>Köşker, H</creator><creator>Karabayırlı, S</creator><creator>Çimen, N K</creator><creator>Demircioğlu, R I</creator><general>Medknow Publications and Media Pvt. Ltd</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20170801</creationdate><title>Comparison of Epidrum, Epi-Jet, and Loss of Resistance syringe techniques for identifying the epidural space in obstetric patients</title><author>Kartal, S ; Kösem, B ; Kılınç, H ; Köşker, H ; Karabayırlı, S ; Çimen, N K ; Demircioğlu, R I</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c397t-9343948802e54c6176a4cd0f72719631dabd0b0c10856b79692e8667966c36eb3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>Obstetrical research</topic><topic>Physiological aspects</topic><topic>Spinal canal</topic><topic>Syringes</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Kartal, S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kösem, B</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kılınç, H</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Köşker, H</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Karabayırlı, S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Çimen, N K</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Demircioğlu, R I</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Nigerian journal of clinical practice</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Kartal, S</au><au>Kösem, B</au><au>Kılınç, H</au><au>Köşker, H</au><au>Karabayırlı, S</au><au>Çimen, N K</au><au>Demircioğlu, R I</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparison of Epidrum, Epi-Jet, and Loss of Resistance syringe techniques for identifying the epidural space in obstetric patients</atitle><jtitle>Nigerian journal of clinical practice</jtitle><addtitle>Niger J Clin Pract</addtitle><date>2017-08-01</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>20</volume><issue>8</issue><spage>992</spage><epage>997</epage><pages>992-997</pages><issn>1119-3077</issn><abstract>Identifying the epidural space is essential during epidural anesthesia (EA). Pressure of the epidural space in pregnancy is higher than that in nonpregnant woman. Loss of resistance (LOR) method is the most commonly preferred method for identifying the epidural space. Epidrum and Epi-Jet are recently innovated supporting devices that facilitate identifying process for epidural space. In this study we aimed to compare Epidrum, Epi-Jet, and LOR methods in identifying the epidural space, feasibility of technique. Two hundred and forty pregnant women who were scheduled for caesarian section surgery under lumbar EA or combined spinal epidural anesthesia (CSEA) were randomized into three groups (Group I Epidrum, n = 80), Group II (Epi-Jet, n = 80), and Group III (LOR, n = 80). We recorded the time required to identify the epidural space and deflation of Epidrum balloon and Epi-Jet syringe, number of attempts, additional methods used to identify epidural space, usefulness of methods, accuracy of identification of epidural space, and outcomes of epidural catheterization. There were no significant differences between the groups with respect to demographic data, duration of deflation of Epidrum balloon and Epi-Jet syringe and distance between skin and epidural space. The mean time required to enter epidural space in Group I was shorter than that in Group II (P = 0.031). Feasibility of Epi-Jet was easier than that of Epidrum (P = 0.015). Number of uncertainties of epidural space identification was higher in Group I than that in Group II (P = 0.009). Also, the requirement for LOR to confirm epidural space and failure rates was higher in Group I than Group II (P &lt; 0.001). We suggest that Epi-Jet is superior to Epidrum in pregnant patients in terms of clarity of epidural space identification, usefulness, and success rates of EA or CSEA.</abstract><cop>India</cop><pub>Medknow Publications and Media Pvt. Ltd</pub><pmid>28891544</pmid><doi>10.4103/1119-3077.214366</doi><tpages>6</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1119-3077
ispartof Nigerian journal of clinical practice, 2017-08, Vol.20 (8), p.992-997
issn 1119-3077
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1937757445
source Open Access: African Journals Online; EZB Electronic Journals Library
subjects Obstetrical research
Physiological aspects
Spinal canal
Syringes
title Comparison of Epidrum, Epi-Jet, and Loss of Resistance syringe techniques for identifying the epidural space in obstetric patients
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-07T17%3A49%3A20IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparison%20of%20Epidrum,%20Epi-Jet,%20and%20Loss%20of%20Resistance%20syringe%20techniques%20for%20identifying%20the%20epidural%20space%20in%20obstetric%20patients&rft.jtitle=Nigerian%20journal%20of%20clinical%20practice&rft.au=Kartal,%20S&rft.date=2017-08-01&rft.volume=20&rft.issue=8&rft.spage=992&rft.epage=997&rft.pages=992-997&rft.issn=1119-3077&rft_id=info:doi/10.4103/1119-3077.214366&rft_dat=%3Cgale_proqu%3EA504290462%3C/gale_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1937757445&rft_id=info:pmid/28891544&rft_galeid=A504290462&rfr_iscdi=true