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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Medicine (Baltimore) 2019-05, Vol.98 (22), p.e15896-e15896
Hauptverfasser: Sim, Woo Seog, Park, Hue Jung, Kwon, Ji Hye, Oh, Min Seok, Jung, Hyun Joo, Cho, Min Kyoung, Lee, Jin Young
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page e15896
container_issue 22
container_start_page e15896
container_title Medicine (Baltimore)
container_volume 98
creator Sim, Woo Seog
Park, Hue Jung
Kwon, Ji Hye
Oh, Min Seok
Jung, Hyun Joo
Cho, Min Kyoung
Lee, Jin Young
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.
doi_str_mv 10.1097/MD.0000000000015896
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_6709147</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2232477438</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4501-eabb9939805550a09b46883c009b8e6e50e2815715e0e69e96efbf9809afc6d53</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpdkUtv3SAQhVHVqLlJ-wsqVV5243QwL7OJVOXVSomyaVZZIIzH97rhGgdMov77kt40fbCBOXxzGHEIeU_hiIJWn65Oj-DPoqLV8hVZUcFkLbTkr8kKoBG10orvk4OUvheIqYa_IfuMUi6YoCtye-5ziCG5MI-uwgfrs13GMFVhqJYNVuM0-IyTwydhQuw9Vmub16WeKpzHPkfrqzRHtH2BK2dzX4TOB3f3luwN1id897wfkpvzs28nX-rL64uvJ58va8cF0Bpt12nNdAtCCLCgOy7bljkopxYlCsCmpUJRgYBSo5Y4dEPBtR2c7AU7JMc73zl3W-wdTksZysxx3Nr4wwQ7mn9vpnFj1uHBSAWaclUMPj4bxHCfMS1mOyaH3tsJQ06maVjDleKsLSjboa58Woo4vDxDwTzFYq5Ozf-xlK4Pf0_40vM7hwLwHfAY_IIx3fn8iNFs0Ppl88tPKN3UDVANglGoi9JS9hP4NpjA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2232477438</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Fluoroscopic evaluation of the influence of needle gauge on epidural spread in caudal block</title><source>Wolters Kluwer Open Health</source><source>MEDLINE</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>IngentaConnect Free/Open Access Journals</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Sim, Woo Seog ; Park, Hue Jung ; Kwon, Ji Hye ; Oh, Min Seok ; Jung, Hyun Joo ; Cho, Min Kyoung ; Lee, Jin Young</creator><creatorcontrib>Sim, Woo Seog ; Park, Hue Jung ; Kwon, Ji Hye ; Oh, Min Seok ; Jung, Hyun Joo ; Cho, Min Kyoung ; Lee, Jin Young</creatorcontrib><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.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0025-7974</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1536-5964</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000015896</identifier><identifier>PMID: 31145351</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc</publisher><subject>Aged ; Anesthesia, Caudal - instrumentation ; Anesthesia, Caudal - methods ; Epidural Space - diagnostic imaging ; Epidural Space - drug effects ; Female ; Fluoroscopy - methods ; Humans ; Injections, Epidural - instrumentation ; Injections, Epidural - methods ; Low Back Pain - drug therapy ; Lumbosacral Region - diagnostic imaging ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Needles ; Nerve Block - instrumentation ; Nerve Block - methods ; Observational Study ; Radiculopathy - drug therapy ; Retrospective Studies ; Treatment Outcome</subject><ispartof>Medicine (Baltimore), 2019-05, Vol.98 (22), p.e15896-e15896</ispartof><rights>the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.</rights><rights>Copyright © 2019 the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. 2019</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4501-eabb9939805550a09b46883c009b8e6e50e2815715e0e69e96efbf9809afc6d53</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4501-eabb9939805550a09b46883c009b8e6e50e2815715e0e69e96efbf9809afc6d53</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6709147/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6709147/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,723,776,780,860,881,27901,27902,53766,53768</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31145351$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Sim, Woo Seog</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Park, Hue Jung</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kwon, Ji Hye</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Oh, Min Seok</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jung, Hyun Joo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cho, Min Kyoung</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lee, Jin Young</creatorcontrib><title>Fluoroscopic evaluation of the influence of needle gauge on epidural spread in caudal block</title><title>Medicine (Baltimore)</title><addtitle>Medicine (Baltimore)</addtitle><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.</description><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Anesthesia, Caudal - instrumentation</subject><subject>Anesthesia, Caudal - methods</subject><subject>Epidural Space - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Epidural Space - drug effects</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Fluoroscopy - methods</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Injections, Epidural - instrumentation</subject><subject>Injections, Epidural - methods</subject><subject>Low Back Pain - drug therapy</subject><subject>Lumbosacral Region - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Needles</subject><subject>Nerve Block - instrumentation</subject><subject>Nerve Block - methods</subject><subject>Observational Study</subject><subject>Radiculopathy - drug therapy</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>Treatment Outcome</subject><issn>0025-7974</issn><issn>1536-5964</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNpdkUtv3SAQhVHVqLlJ-wsqVV5243QwL7OJVOXVSomyaVZZIIzH97rhGgdMov77kt40fbCBOXxzGHEIeU_hiIJWn65Oj-DPoqLV8hVZUcFkLbTkr8kKoBG10orvk4OUvheIqYa_IfuMUi6YoCtye-5ziCG5MI-uwgfrs13GMFVhqJYNVuM0-IyTwydhQuw9Vmub16WeKpzHPkfrqzRHtH2BK2dzX4TOB3f3luwN1id897wfkpvzs28nX-rL64uvJ58va8cF0Bpt12nNdAtCCLCgOy7bljkopxYlCsCmpUJRgYBSo5Y4dEPBtR2c7AU7JMc73zl3W-wdTksZysxx3Nr4wwQ7mn9vpnFj1uHBSAWaclUMPj4bxHCfMS1mOyaH3tsJQ06maVjDleKsLSjboa58Woo4vDxDwTzFYq5Ozf-xlK4Pf0_40vM7hwLwHfAY_IIx3fn8iNFs0Ppl88tPKN3UDVANglGoi9JS9hP4NpjA</recordid><startdate>20190501</startdate><enddate>20190501</enddate><creator>Sim, Woo Seog</creator><creator>Park, Hue Jung</creator><creator>Kwon, Ji Hye</creator><creator>Oh, Min Seok</creator><creator>Jung, Hyun Joo</creator><creator>Cho, Min Kyoung</creator><creator>Lee, Jin Young</creator><general>the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc</general><general>Wolters Kluwer Health</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><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20190501</creationdate><title>Fluoroscopic evaluation of the influence of needle gauge on epidural spread in caudal block</title><author>Sim, Woo Seog ; Park, Hue Jung ; Kwon, Ji Hye ; Oh, Min Seok ; Jung, Hyun Joo ; Cho, Min Kyoung ; Lee, Jin Young</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4501-eabb9939805550a09b46883c009b8e6e50e2815715e0e69e96efbf9809afc6d53</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Anesthesia, Caudal - instrumentation</topic><topic>Anesthesia, Caudal - methods</topic><topic>Epidural Space - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Epidural Space - drug effects</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Fluoroscopy - methods</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Injections, Epidural - instrumentation</topic><topic>Injections, Epidural - methods</topic><topic>Low Back Pain - drug therapy</topic><topic>Lumbosacral Region - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Needles</topic><topic>Nerve Block - instrumentation</topic><topic>Nerve Block - methods</topic><topic>Observational Study</topic><topic>Radiculopathy - drug therapy</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>Treatment Outcome</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Sim, Woo Seog</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Park, Hue Jung</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kwon, Ji Hye</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Oh, Min Seok</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jung, Hyun Joo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cho, Min Kyoung</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lee, Jin Young</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><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Medicine (Baltimore)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Sim, Woo Seog</au><au>Park, Hue Jung</au><au>Kwon, Ji Hye</au><au>Oh, Min Seok</au><au>Jung, Hyun Joo</au><au>Cho, Min Kyoung</au><au>Lee, Jin Young</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Fluoroscopic evaluation of the influence of needle gauge on epidural spread in caudal block</atitle><jtitle>Medicine (Baltimore)</jtitle><addtitle>Medicine (Baltimore)</addtitle><date>2019-05-01</date><risdate>2019</risdate><volume>98</volume><issue>22</issue><spage>e15896</spage><epage>e15896</epage><pages>e15896-e15896</pages><issn>0025-7974</issn><eissn>1536-5964</eissn><abstract>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.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc</pub><pmid>31145351</pmid><doi>10.1097/MD.0000000000015896</doi><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0025-7974
ispartof Medicine (Baltimore), 2019-05, Vol.98 (22), p.e15896-e15896
issn 0025-7974
1536-5964
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_6709147
source Wolters Kluwer Open Health; MEDLINE; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; IngentaConnect Free/Open Access Journals; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; PubMed Central; Alma/SFX Local Collection
subjects Aged
Anesthesia, Caudal - instrumentation
Anesthesia, Caudal - methods
Epidural Space - diagnostic imaging
Epidural Space - drug effects
Female
Fluoroscopy - methods
Humans
Injections, Epidural - instrumentation
Injections, Epidural - methods
Low Back Pain - drug therapy
Lumbosacral Region - diagnostic imaging
Male
Middle Aged
Needles
Nerve Block - instrumentation
Nerve Block - methods
Observational Study
Radiculopathy - drug therapy
Retrospective Studies
Treatment Outcome
title Fluoroscopic evaluation of the influence of needle gauge on epidural spread in caudal block
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-14T07%3A35%3A09IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Fluoroscopic%20evaluation%20of%20the%20influence%20of%20needle%20gauge%20on%20epidural%20spread%20in%20caudal%20block&rft.jtitle=Medicine%20(Baltimore)&rft.au=Sim,%20Woo%20Seog&rft.date=2019-05-01&rft.volume=98&rft.issue=22&rft.spage=e15896&rft.epage=e15896&rft.pages=e15896-e15896&rft.issn=0025-7974&rft.eissn=1536-5964&rft_id=info:doi/10.1097/MD.0000000000015896&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E2232477438%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2232477438&rft_id=info:pmid/31145351&rfr_iscdi=true