Impact of spinal needle size and design on post-dural puncture headache: A narrative review of literature

IF 0.1 Q4 ANESTHESIOLOGY Acta anaesthesiologica Belgica Pub Date : 2023-06-01 DOI:10.56126/74.2.14
J Van der Auwera, K Paemeleire, M Coppens
{"title":"Impact of spinal needle size and design on post-dural puncture headache: A narrative review of literature","authors":"J Van der Auwera, K Paemeleire, M Coppens","doi":"10.56126/74.2.14","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Post-dural puncture headache (PDPH) is a well-known iatrogenic complication of lumbar puncture. The main modifiable risk factors of PDPH appear to be needle size and design, which have been extensively modified in an effort to lower the incidence of PDPH. Currently, there is no consensus on the ideal needle tip for lumbar puncture. Therefore, we have conducted this narrative review of literature to provide a more definite answer regarding the impact of spinal needle size and design on PDPH. Methods: Relevant literature was obtained by searching the scientific literature using PubMed, EMBASE, ISI Web of Knowledge, and Google Scholar for from 1990 to July 2022. Results: Both size and design have been extensively researched in numerous randomized controlled trials. A total of seven systematic reviews published since 2016 were reviewed: Five combined with meta-analyses of which two also with a meta-regression analysis, one combined with a network meta-analysis, and one Cochrane review. Discussion and Conclusion: The evidence presented in this review consistently shows that the atraumatic design is less likely to cause PDPH than the traumatic design. There is no simple linear correlation between smaller needle size and lower incidence of PDPH in either needle type. In lumbar puncture for spinal anesthesia we advise the 26G atraumatic spinal needle as the preferred choice, as it is the least likely to cause PDPH and the most likely to enable successful insertion. If unavailable, the 27-gauge atraumatic needle is the next best choice.","PeriodicalId":7024,"journal":{"name":"Acta anaesthesiologica Belgica","volume":"8 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta anaesthesiologica Belgica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.56126/74.2.14","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Post-dural puncture headache (PDPH) is a well-known iatrogenic complication of lumbar puncture. The main modifiable risk factors of PDPH appear to be needle size and design, which have been extensively modified in an effort to lower the incidence of PDPH. Currently, there is no consensus on the ideal needle tip for lumbar puncture. Therefore, we have conducted this narrative review of literature to provide a more definite answer regarding the impact of spinal needle size and design on PDPH. Methods: Relevant literature was obtained by searching the scientific literature using PubMed, EMBASE, ISI Web of Knowledge, and Google Scholar for from 1990 to July 2022. Results: Both size and design have been extensively researched in numerous randomized controlled trials. A total of seven systematic reviews published since 2016 were reviewed: Five combined with meta-analyses of which two also with a meta-regression analysis, one combined with a network meta-analysis, and one Cochrane review. Discussion and Conclusion: The evidence presented in this review consistently shows that the atraumatic design is less likely to cause PDPH than the traumatic design. There is no simple linear correlation between smaller needle size and lower incidence of PDPH in either needle type. In lumbar puncture for spinal anesthesia we advise the 26G atraumatic spinal needle as the preferred choice, as it is the least likely to cause PDPH and the most likely to enable successful insertion. If unavailable, the 27-gauge atraumatic needle is the next best choice.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
脊髓针的大小和设计对硬脊膜穿刺后头痛的影响:文献综述
背景:硬脊膜穿刺后头痛(PDPH)是腰椎穿刺后常见的医源性并发症。PDPH的主要可改变的危险因素似乎是针头的大小和设计,这已经被广泛地修改,以降低PDPH的发病率。目前,对于腰椎穿刺的理想针尖尚无共识。因此,我们对文献进行了叙述性回顾,以提供关于脊髓针尺寸和设计对PDPH影响的更明确的答案。方法:通过PubMed、EMBASE、ISI Web of Knowledge和Google Scholar检索1990年至2022年7月的科学文献,获得相关文献。结果:在大量的随机对照试验中,对大小和设计进行了广泛的研究。共回顾了自2016年以来发表的7篇系统综述:5篇结合元分析,其中2篇还结合元回归分析,1篇结合网络元分析,1篇Cochrane综述。讨论和结论:本综述提供的证据一致表明,非创伤设计比创伤设计更不容易引起PDPH。在两种针型中,较小的针型与较低的PDPH发生率之间没有简单的线性关系。在腰椎穿刺脊髓麻醉时,我们建议首选26G无伤性脊髓针,因为它最不可能引起PDPH,并且最有可能成功插入。如果没有,27号自动针是下一个最好的选择。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
2
期刊介绍: L’Acta Anaesthesiologica Belgica est le journal de la SBAR, publié 4 fois par an. L’Acta a été publié pour la première fois en 1950. Depuis 1973 l’Acta est publié dans la langue Anglaise, ce qui a été résulté à un rayonnement plus internationaux. Depuis lors l’Acta est devenu un journal à ne pas manquer dans le domaine d’Anesthésie Belge, offrant e.a. les textes du congrès annuel, les Research Meetings, … Vous en trouvez aussi les dates des Research Meetings, du congrès annuel et des autres réunions.
期刊最新文献
The WHO Surgical Safety Checklist in Belgian hospitals: Changes in use, knowledge, opinions and perception of pressure among operating room professionals between 2016 and 2021 Herpes simplex virus reactivation among severe COVID-19 patients: to treat or not to treat? Assessing fluid shifts in the pediatric surgical patient: is bioimpedance a promising tool Incidence of brachial plexus injury after cardiac surgery: a retrospective study Catheter-based serratus anterior plane block vs. continuous wound infiltration for postoperative pain control following minimally invasive atrioventricular valve surgery : a randomized, prospective trial
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1