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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Medicine (Baltimore) 2019-05, Vol.98 (22), p.e15896-e15896 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , |
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 |