Efficacy of spinal anesthesia—ultrasound guided versus landmark-based, in patients undergoing spinal anesthesia: a prospective cross-sectional study

Krishnamurthy Priya, Sanjeev Kakaraddi, DeepakMukundarao Kavaraganahalli
{"title":"Efficacy of spinal anesthesia—ultrasound guided versus landmark-based, in patients undergoing spinal anesthesia: a prospective cross-sectional study","authors":"Krishnamurthy Priya, Sanjeev Kakaraddi, DeepakMukundarao Kavaraganahalli","doi":"10.4103/mgmj.mgmj_191_23","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: This research aims to assess the effectiveness and practical value of ultrasound imaging (US group) in minimizing the discomfort and potential hazards associated with spinal anesthesia compared to traditional landmark-based (LM group) approaches. Materials and Methods: In this prospective, randomized comparative investigation, 80 patients were enrolled to undergo spinal anesthesia using either the landmark-based or ultrasound-guided method, with an equal distribution of 40 patients in each respective group. The study recorded various parameters, including evaluation duration, count of needle insertion attempts, instances of redirection, duration of spinal anesthesia, overall procedure time (comprising assessment and administration of spinal anesthesia), and measurement of intrathecal space depth. Patient comfort was evaluated employing a visual analog scale (VAS). Results: Demographic characteristics, including age, gender, and body mass index, exhibited no notable differences. The overall procedure time was approximately 2–3 min for the LM group and 3–4 min for the US group, with a statistically significant difference (P < 0.0001). The initial successful needle insertion rate was considerably more critical in the US group (52.5%) than in the LM group (10%). The distance from the skin to the subarachnoid space was notably more remarkable in the US group, with a statistically significant distinction from the LM group (P = 0.034). The successful spinal needle placement rate was 77.5% in the US group, significantly surpassing the LM group’s rate of 25% (P < 0.05). Regarding patient comfort assessed using the VAS, the US group demonstrated significantly greater comfort levels than the LM group. In the US group, every patient reported a VAS score of <4, whereas only 27.5% achieved the same level of comfort in the LM group. Conclusion: Our study provides evidence supporting the utility of pre-procedural ultrasound evaluation of the subarachnoid space as an effective tool for achieving successful lumbar punctures in patients receiving spinal anesthesia. Compared to the traditional landmark technique, this approach reduces the number of attempts required while enhancing patient comfort.","PeriodicalId":52587,"journal":{"name":"MGM Journal of Medical Sciences","volume":"28 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"MGM Journal of Medical Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/mgmj.mgmj_191_23","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: This research aims to assess the effectiveness and practical value of ultrasound imaging (US group) in minimizing the discomfort and potential hazards associated with spinal anesthesia compared to traditional landmark-based (LM group) approaches. Materials and Methods: In this prospective, randomized comparative investigation, 80 patients were enrolled to undergo spinal anesthesia using either the landmark-based or ultrasound-guided method, with an equal distribution of 40 patients in each respective group. The study recorded various parameters, including evaluation duration, count of needle insertion attempts, instances of redirection, duration of spinal anesthesia, overall procedure time (comprising assessment and administration of spinal anesthesia), and measurement of intrathecal space depth. Patient comfort was evaluated employing a visual analog scale (VAS). Results: Demographic characteristics, including age, gender, and body mass index, exhibited no notable differences. The overall procedure time was approximately 2–3 min for the LM group and 3–4 min for the US group, with a statistically significant difference (P < 0.0001). The initial successful needle insertion rate was considerably more critical in the US group (52.5%) than in the LM group (10%). The distance from the skin to the subarachnoid space was notably more remarkable in the US group, with a statistically significant distinction from the LM group (P = 0.034). The successful spinal needle placement rate was 77.5% in the US group, significantly surpassing the LM group’s rate of 25% (P < 0.05). Regarding patient comfort assessed using the VAS, the US group demonstrated significantly greater comfort levels than the LM group. In the US group, every patient reported a VAS score of <4, whereas only 27.5% achieved the same level of comfort in the LM group. Conclusion: Our study provides evidence supporting the utility of pre-procedural ultrasound evaluation of the subarachnoid space as an effective tool for achieving successful lumbar punctures in patients receiving spinal anesthesia. Compared to the traditional landmark technique, this approach reduces the number of attempts required while enhancing patient comfort.
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
在脊髓麻醉患者中,超声引导与路标引导的疗效:一项前瞻性横断面研究
目的:本研究旨在评估超声成像(US组)在最大限度地减少与脊髓麻醉相关的不适和潜在危险方面的有效性和实用价值,与传统的地标性方法(LM组)相比。材料和方法:在这项前瞻性、随机对照研究中,80例患者采用地标法或超声引导法接受脊髓麻醉,每组平均分布40例患者。该研究记录了各种参数,包括评估时间、针插入次数、重定向次数、脊髓麻醉持续时间、整个过程时间(包括脊髓麻醉的评估和给药)和鞘内间隙深度的测量。采用视觉模拟量表(VAS)评价患者舒适度。结果:人口统计学特征,包括年龄、性别和体重指数,没有显着差异。整个手术时间LM组约为2-3 min, US组约为3-4 min,差异有统计学意义(P < 0.0001)。初始针头成功插入率在US组(52.5%)比LM组(10%)更为关键。US组皮肤到蛛网膜下腔的距离更为显著,与LM组差异有统计学意义(P = 0.034)。US组脊柱置针成功率为77.5%,明显高于LM组的25% (P < 0.05)。关于使用VAS评估的患者舒适度,US组表现出明显高于LM组的舒适度。在美国组中,每位患者报告的VAS评分均<4,而LM组中只有27.5%的患者达到了相同的舒适水平。结论:我们的研究提供了证据,支持术前超声评估蛛网膜下腔是脊髓麻醉患者腰椎穿刺成功的有效工具。与传统的地标技术相比,这种方法减少了所需的尝试次数,同时提高了患者的舒适度。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
23
审稿时长
14 weeks
期刊最新文献
Prevalence of ocular manifestations and related morbidity in severely malnourished children in a tertiary eye care center An evolutionary explanation for increased cesarean section rates Renal-limited systemic lupus erythematosus: Avoiding delay in diagnosis Associative role of methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase and thymidylate synthase 6bp del gene polymorphism in preterm delivery Clinical presentation and fungal species distribution in otomycosis in a tertiary care hospital
×
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