Feasibility of ultrasound-guided lumbar epidural access using paramedian transverse scanning with the needle in-plane: a comparison with paramedian sagittal scanning

Background and objectives The present study was designed to compare the feasibility of ultrasound (US)-guided lumbar epidural access using paramedian sagittal scanning (PMSS) and paramedian transverse scanning (PMTS) approaches. Methods Fifty patients undergoing surgery of the lower extremities were...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of anesthesia 2020-02, Vol.34 (1), p.29-35
Hauptverfasser: Li, Huili, Kang, Yi, Jin, Li, Ma, Danxu, Liu, Yang, Wang, Yun
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 35
container_issue 1
container_start_page 29
container_title Journal of anesthesia
container_volume 34
creator Li, Huili
Kang, Yi
Jin, Li
Ma, Danxu
Liu, Yang
Wang, Yun
description Background and objectives The present study was designed to compare the feasibility of ultrasound (US)-guided lumbar epidural access using paramedian sagittal scanning (PMSS) and paramedian transverse scanning (PMTS) approaches. Methods Fifty patients undergoing surgery of the lower extremities were randomly allocated into 2 groups. The patients in PMSS group received PMSS-guided in-plane epidural access, whereas patients in PMTS group received PMTS-guided in-plane epidural access. The US visibility of neuraxial structures and of Tuohy needle during US scout scan, procedure duration, the number of attempts to access epidural space, Tuohy needle puncture depth in the epidural space, and extent of sensory block after spinal block between two groups were compared. Results The US visibility of Tuohy needle and neuraxial structures was comparable between two groups. There was an overall decrease in procedure duration in the PMTS group relative to the PMSS group (360 ± 42 vs. 490 ± 38 s). The number of attempts needed to access the epidural space in PMSS group was significantly higher than in PMTS group. Distances between the epidural space and the puncture site in PMSS group and PMTS group showed a significant difference (7.13 ± 0.67 vs. 5.24 ± 0.21 cm). No significant differences in the extent of sensory block after spinal block were observed. Conclusions We found that PMTS approach was superior as a means of achieving epidural access relative to the PMSS approach, since PMTS approach can be conducted more quickly given shorter path of the needle and less times needed for epidural access during this procedure. Clinical trial registration Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, clinical trial number ChiCTR1800015815, date of registration April 24, 2018.
doi_str_mv 10.1007/s00540-019-02704-7
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>gale_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2310713750</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A612850858</galeid><sourcerecordid>A612850858</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c476t-d4b36b1191b7531b3677a10ecb1e5702628772f598a83b541eb53b3db93316553</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9ksFuFSEYhYnR2NvqC7gwJG7cUGEYBsZd09hq0sSNrgkw_0xpZuAKg6YP5HvKdVqjyY1hQYDvHODkIPSK0XNGqXyXKRUtJZT1hDaStkQ-QTvWckUUF_1TtKM940R1nTpBpznfUUo7xvhzdMJZ10mh2h36eQUme-tnv97jOOIyr8nkWMJApuIHGPBcFmsShr0fSjIzNs5BzrhkHya8N8ksMHgTcNWF_B1SBpydCeFw_MOvt3i9BRwAhhmwD2Q_mwDvscEuLlXtcwwb9pdVNpNf13rXo9EL9Gw0c4aXD_MZ-nr14cvlR3Lz-frT5cUNca3sVjK0lneWsZ5ZKTirCykNo-AsAyFp0zVKymYUvTKKW9EysIJbPtie10SE4Gfo7ea7T_FbgbzqxWcH8-HNsWTdcEYl41LQir7Z0MnMoH0YYw3AHXB90bFGCaqEqhQ5Qk0QoEYZA4y-bv_Dnx_h6xhg8e6ooNkELsWcE4x6n_xi0r1mVB9aoreW6NoS_bslWlbR64dvFlsj_yN5rEUF-AbkehQmSPoulhRq9P-z_QXQXMj5</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2310713750</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Feasibility of ultrasound-guided lumbar epidural access using paramedian transverse scanning with the needle in-plane: a comparison with paramedian sagittal scanning</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>SpringerLink Journals</source><creator>Li, Huili ; Kang, Yi ; Jin, Li ; Ma, Danxu ; Liu, Yang ; Wang, Yun</creator><creatorcontrib>Li, Huili ; Kang, Yi ; Jin, Li ; Ma, Danxu ; Liu, Yang ; Wang, Yun</creatorcontrib><description>Background and objectives The present study was designed to compare the feasibility of ultrasound (US)-guided lumbar epidural access using paramedian sagittal scanning (PMSS) and paramedian transverse scanning (PMTS) approaches. Methods Fifty patients undergoing surgery of the lower extremities were randomly allocated into 2 groups. The patients in PMSS group received PMSS-guided in-plane epidural access, whereas patients in PMTS group received PMTS-guided in-plane epidural access. The US visibility of neuraxial structures and of Tuohy needle during US scout scan, procedure duration, the number of attempts to access epidural space, Tuohy needle puncture depth in the epidural space, and extent of sensory block after spinal block between two groups were compared. Results The US visibility of Tuohy needle and neuraxial structures was comparable between two groups. There was an overall decrease in procedure duration in the PMTS group relative to the PMSS group (360 ± 42 vs. 490 ± 38 s). The number of attempts needed to access the epidural space in PMSS group was significantly higher than in PMTS group. Distances between the epidural space and the puncture site in PMSS group and PMTS group showed a significant difference (7.13 ± 0.67 vs. 5.24 ± 0.21 cm). No significant differences in the extent of sensory block after spinal block were observed. Conclusions We found that PMTS approach was superior as a means of achieving epidural access relative to the PMSS approach, since PMTS approach can be conducted more quickly given shorter path of the needle and less times needed for epidural access during this procedure. Clinical trial registration Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, clinical trial number ChiCTR1800015815, date of registration April 24, 2018.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0913-8668</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1438-8359</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s00540-019-02704-7</identifier><identifier>PMID: 31667584</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Singapore: Springer Singapore</publisher><subject>Anesthesia, Epidural ; Anesthesiology ; ChiCTR ; ChiCTR1800015815 ; Critical Care Medicine ; Emergency Medicine ; Epidural Space - diagnostic imaging ; Feasibility Studies ; Humans ; Intensive ; Medicine ; Medicine &amp; Public Health ; Original Article ; Pain Medicine ; Ultrasonography ; Ultrasonography, Interventional</subject><ispartof>Journal of anesthesia, 2020-02, Vol.34 (1), p.29-35</ispartof><rights>Japanese Society of Anesthesiologists 2019</rights><rights>COPYRIGHT 2020 Springer</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c476t-d4b36b1191b7531b3677a10ecb1e5702628772f598a83b541eb53b3db93316553</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c476t-d4b36b1191b7531b3677a10ecb1e5702628772f598a83b541eb53b3db93316553</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-0695-8861</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00540-019-02704-7$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00540-019-02704-7$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902,41464,42533,51294</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31667584$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Li, Huili</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kang, Yi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jin, Li</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ma, Danxu</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Liu, Yang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wang, Yun</creatorcontrib><title>Feasibility of ultrasound-guided lumbar epidural access using paramedian transverse scanning with the needle in-plane: a comparison with paramedian sagittal scanning</title><title>Journal of anesthesia</title><addtitle>J Anesth</addtitle><addtitle>J Anesth</addtitle><description>Background and objectives The present study was designed to compare the feasibility of ultrasound (US)-guided lumbar epidural access using paramedian sagittal scanning (PMSS) and paramedian transverse scanning (PMTS) approaches. Methods Fifty patients undergoing surgery of the lower extremities were randomly allocated into 2 groups. The patients in PMSS group received PMSS-guided in-plane epidural access, whereas patients in PMTS group received PMTS-guided in-plane epidural access. The US visibility of neuraxial structures and of Tuohy needle during US scout scan, procedure duration, the number of attempts to access epidural space, Tuohy needle puncture depth in the epidural space, and extent of sensory block after spinal block between two groups were compared. Results The US visibility of Tuohy needle and neuraxial structures was comparable between two groups. There was an overall decrease in procedure duration in the PMTS group relative to the PMSS group (360 ± 42 vs. 490 ± 38 s). The number of attempts needed to access the epidural space in PMSS group was significantly higher than in PMTS group. Distances between the epidural space and the puncture site in PMSS group and PMTS group showed a significant difference (7.13 ± 0.67 vs. 5.24 ± 0.21 cm). No significant differences in the extent of sensory block after spinal block were observed. Conclusions We found that PMTS approach was superior as a means of achieving epidural access relative to the PMSS approach, since PMTS approach can be conducted more quickly given shorter path of the needle and less times needed for epidural access during this procedure. Clinical trial registration Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, clinical trial number ChiCTR1800015815, date of registration April 24, 2018.</description><subject>Anesthesia, Epidural</subject><subject>Anesthesiology</subject><subject>ChiCTR</subject><subject>ChiCTR1800015815</subject><subject>Critical Care Medicine</subject><subject>Emergency Medicine</subject><subject>Epidural Space - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Feasibility Studies</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Intensive</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine &amp; Public Health</subject><subject>Original Article</subject><subject>Pain Medicine</subject><subject>Ultrasonography</subject><subject>Ultrasonography, Interventional</subject><issn>0913-8668</issn><issn>1438-8359</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9ksFuFSEYhYnR2NvqC7gwJG7cUGEYBsZd09hq0sSNrgkw_0xpZuAKg6YP5HvKdVqjyY1hQYDvHODkIPSK0XNGqXyXKRUtJZT1hDaStkQ-QTvWckUUF_1TtKM940R1nTpBpznfUUo7xvhzdMJZ10mh2h36eQUme-tnv97jOOIyr8nkWMJApuIHGPBcFmsShr0fSjIzNs5BzrhkHya8N8ksMHgTcNWF_B1SBpydCeFw_MOvt3i9BRwAhhmwD2Q_mwDvscEuLlXtcwwb9pdVNpNf13rXo9EL9Gw0c4aXD_MZ-nr14cvlR3Lz-frT5cUNca3sVjK0lneWsZ5ZKTirCykNo-AsAyFp0zVKymYUvTKKW9EysIJbPtie10SE4Gfo7ea7T_FbgbzqxWcH8-HNsWTdcEYl41LQir7Z0MnMoH0YYw3AHXB90bFGCaqEqhQ5Qk0QoEYZA4y-bv_Dnx_h6xhg8e6ooNkELsWcE4x6n_xi0r1mVB9aoreW6NoS_bslWlbR64dvFlsj_yN5rEUF-AbkehQmSPoulhRq9P-z_QXQXMj5</recordid><startdate>20200201</startdate><enddate>20200201</enddate><creator>Li, Huili</creator><creator>Kang, Yi</creator><creator>Jin, Li</creator><creator>Ma, Danxu</creator><creator>Liu, Yang</creator><creator>Wang, Yun</creator><general>Springer Singapore</general><general>Springer</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0695-8861</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20200201</creationdate><title>Feasibility of ultrasound-guided lumbar epidural access using paramedian transverse scanning with the needle in-plane: a comparison with paramedian sagittal scanning</title><author>Li, Huili ; Kang, Yi ; Jin, Li ; Ma, Danxu ; Liu, Yang ; Wang, Yun</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c476t-d4b36b1191b7531b3677a10ecb1e5702628772f598a83b541eb53b3db93316553</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Anesthesia, Epidural</topic><topic>Anesthesiology</topic><topic>ChiCTR</topic><topic>ChiCTR1800015815</topic><topic>Critical Care Medicine</topic><topic>Emergency Medicine</topic><topic>Epidural Space - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Feasibility Studies</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Intensive</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine &amp; Public Health</topic><topic>Original Article</topic><topic>Pain Medicine</topic><topic>Ultrasonography</topic><topic>Ultrasonography, Interventional</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Li, Huili</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kang, Yi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jin, Li</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ma, Danxu</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Liu, Yang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wang, Yun</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of anesthesia</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Li, Huili</au><au>Kang, Yi</au><au>Jin, Li</au><au>Ma, Danxu</au><au>Liu, Yang</au><au>Wang, Yun</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Feasibility of ultrasound-guided lumbar epidural access using paramedian transverse scanning with the needle in-plane: a comparison with paramedian sagittal scanning</atitle><jtitle>Journal of anesthesia</jtitle><stitle>J Anesth</stitle><addtitle>J Anesth</addtitle><date>2020-02-01</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>34</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>29</spage><epage>35</epage><pages>29-35</pages><issn>0913-8668</issn><eissn>1438-8359</eissn><abstract>Background and objectives The present study was designed to compare the feasibility of ultrasound (US)-guided lumbar epidural access using paramedian sagittal scanning (PMSS) and paramedian transverse scanning (PMTS) approaches. Methods Fifty patients undergoing surgery of the lower extremities were randomly allocated into 2 groups. The patients in PMSS group received PMSS-guided in-plane epidural access, whereas patients in PMTS group received PMTS-guided in-plane epidural access. The US visibility of neuraxial structures and of Tuohy needle during US scout scan, procedure duration, the number of attempts to access epidural space, Tuohy needle puncture depth in the epidural space, and extent of sensory block after spinal block between two groups were compared. Results The US visibility of Tuohy needle and neuraxial structures was comparable between two groups. There was an overall decrease in procedure duration in the PMTS group relative to the PMSS group (360 ± 42 vs. 490 ± 38 s). The number of attempts needed to access the epidural space in PMSS group was significantly higher than in PMTS group. Distances between the epidural space and the puncture site in PMSS group and PMTS group showed a significant difference (7.13 ± 0.67 vs. 5.24 ± 0.21 cm). No significant differences in the extent of sensory block after spinal block were observed. Conclusions We found that PMTS approach was superior as a means of achieving epidural access relative to the PMSS approach, since PMTS approach can be conducted more quickly given shorter path of the needle and less times needed for epidural access during this procedure. Clinical trial registration Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, clinical trial number ChiCTR1800015815, date of registration April 24, 2018.</abstract><cop>Singapore</cop><pub>Springer Singapore</pub><pmid>31667584</pmid><doi>10.1007/s00540-019-02704-7</doi><tpages>7</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0695-8861</orcidid></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0913-8668
ispartof Journal of anesthesia, 2020-02, Vol.34 (1), p.29-35
issn 0913-8668
1438-8359
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2310713750
source MEDLINE; SpringerLink Journals
subjects Anesthesia, Epidural
Anesthesiology
ChiCTR
ChiCTR1800015815
Critical Care Medicine
Emergency Medicine
Epidural Space - diagnostic imaging
Feasibility Studies
Humans
Intensive
Medicine
Medicine & Public Health
Original Article
Pain Medicine
Ultrasonography
Ultrasonography, Interventional
title Feasibility of ultrasound-guided lumbar epidural access using paramedian transverse scanning with the needle in-plane: a comparison with paramedian sagittal scanning
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-11T01%3A19%3A24IST&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=Feasibility%20of%20ultrasound-guided%20lumbar%20epidural%20access%20using%20paramedian%20transverse%20scanning%20with%20the%20needle%20in-plane:%20a%20comparison%20with%20paramedian%20sagittal%20scanning&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20anesthesia&rft.au=Li,%20Huili&rft.date=2020-02-01&rft.volume=34&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=29&rft.epage=35&rft.pages=29-35&rft.issn=0913-8668&rft.eissn=1438-8359&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s00540-019-02704-7&rft_dat=%3Cgale_proqu%3EA612850858%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=2310713750&rft_id=info:pmid/31667584&rft_galeid=A612850858&rfr_iscdi=true