Combined spinal-epidural vs. dural puncture epidural techniques for labour analgesia: a randomised controlled trial*

IF 7.5 1区 医学 Q1 ANESTHESIOLOGY Anaesthesia Pub Date : 2024-11-07 DOI:10.1111/anae.16433
Hannah Zang, Andrew Padilla, Trung Pham, Samantha M. Rubright, Matthew Fuller, Amanda Craig, Ashraf S. Habib
{"title":"Combined spinal-epidural vs. dural puncture epidural techniques for labour analgesia: a randomised controlled trial*","authors":"Hannah Zang,&nbsp;Andrew Padilla,&nbsp;Trung Pham,&nbsp;Samantha M. Rubright,&nbsp;Matthew Fuller,&nbsp;Amanda Craig,&nbsp;Ashraf S. Habib","doi":"10.1111/anae.16433","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>The dural puncture epidural technique is a modification of the combined spinal-epidural technique. Data comparing the two techniques are limited. We performed this randomised study to compare the quality of labour analgesia following initiation of analgesia with the dural puncture epidural vs. the combined spinal-epidural technique.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Term parturients requesting labour epidural analgesia were allocated randomly to receive either dural puncture epidural or combined spinal-epidural. Analgesia was initiated with 2 mg intrathecal bupivacaine and 10 μg fentanyl in parturients allocated to the combined spinal-epidural group and with 20 ml ropivacaine 0.1% with 2 μg.ml<sup>-1</sup> fentanyl in parturients allocated to the dural puncture epidural group. Analgesia was maintained using patient-controlled epidural analgesia with programmed intermittent epidural boluses. The primary outcome of the study was the quality of labour analgesia, which was defined by a composite of five components: asymmetric block after 30 min of initiation (difference in sensory level of more than two dermatomes); epidural top-up interventions; catheter adjustment; catheter replacement; and failed conversion to neuraxial anaesthesia for caesarean delivery, requiring general anaesthesia or replacement of the neuraxial block.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>One hundred parturients were included in the analysis (48 combined spinal-epidural, 52 dural puncture epidural). There were no significant differences between the two groups in the primary composite outcome of quality of analgesia (33% in the combined spinal-epidural group vs. 25% in the dural puncture epidural group), risk ratio (95%CI) 0.75 (0.40–1.39); p = 0.486. Median (IQR [range]) pain scores at 15 min were significantly lower in patients allocated to the combined spinal-epidural group compared with the dural puncture epidural group (0 (0–1[0–8]) vs. 1 (0–4 [0–10]); p = 0.018).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>There were no significant differences in the quality of labour analgesia following initiation of a combined spinal-epidural compared with a dural puncture epidural technique.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":7742,"journal":{"name":"Anaesthesia","volume":"80 1","pages":"29-37"},"PeriodicalIF":7.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anaesthesia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/anae.16433","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

The dural puncture epidural technique is a modification of the combined spinal-epidural technique. Data comparing the two techniques are limited. We performed this randomised study to compare the quality of labour analgesia following initiation of analgesia with the dural puncture epidural vs. the combined spinal-epidural technique.

Methods

Term parturients requesting labour epidural analgesia were allocated randomly to receive either dural puncture epidural or combined spinal-epidural. Analgesia was initiated with 2 mg intrathecal bupivacaine and 10 μg fentanyl in parturients allocated to the combined spinal-epidural group and with 20 ml ropivacaine 0.1% with 2 μg.ml-1 fentanyl in parturients allocated to the dural puncture epidural group. Analgesia was maintained using patient-controlled epidural analgesia with programmed intermittent epidural boluses. The primary outcome of the study was the quality of labour analgesia, which was defined by a composite of five components: asymmetric block after 30 min of initiation (difference in sensory level of more than two dermatomes); epidural top-up interventions; catheter adjustment; catheter replacement; and failed conversion to neuraxial anaesthesia for caesarean delivery, requiring general anaesthesia or replacement of the neuraxial block.

Results

One hundred parturients were included in the analysis (48 combined spinal-epidural, 52 dural puncture epidural). There were no significant differences between the two groups in the primary composite outcome of quality of analgesia (33% in the combined spinal-epidural group vs. 25% in the dural puncture epidural group), risk ratio (95%CI) 0.75 (0.40–1.39); p = 0.486. Median (IQR [range]) pain scores at 15 min were significantly lower in patients allocated to the combined spinal-epidural group compared with the dural puncture epidural group (0 (0–1[0–8]) vs. 1 (0–4 [0–10]); p = 0.018).

Conclusions

There were no significant differences in the quality of labour analgesia following initiation of a combined spinal-epidural compared with a dural puncture epidural technique.

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
用于分娩镇痛的脊髓-硬膜外联合技术与硬膜穿刺硬膜外技术:随机对照试验*
摘要背景硬膜外穿刺技术是脊髓-硬膜外联合技术的一种改进。比较这两种技术的数据很有限。我们进行了这项随机研究,以比较硬膜穿刺硬膜外镇痛与脊柱-硬膜外联合技术开始镇痛后的分娩镇痛质量。方法将要求分娩硬膜外镇痛的产妇随机分配到硬膜穿刺硬膜外镇痛或脊柱-硬膜外联合镇痛。硬膜穿刺硬膜外组的产妇使用2毫克鞘内布比卡因和10微克芬太尼开始镇痛,硬膜穿刺硬膜外组的产妇使用20毫升0.1%罗哌卡因和2微克.毫升-1芬太尼开始镇痛。镇痛采用患者控制硬膜外镇痛和程序化间歇硬膜外栓剂维持。研究的主要结果是分娩镇痛的质量,它由五个部分组成:开始镇痛30分钟后的不对称阻滞(感觉水平相差两个皮节以上);硬膜外充盈干预;导管调整;导管更换;剖腹产转神经麻醉失败,需要全身麻醉或更换神经阻滞。结果 100 名产妇被纳入分析(48 名脊髓硬膜外联合麻醉,52 名硬膜穿刺硬膜外麻醉)。两组在镇痛质量的主要综合结果上无明显差异(脊髓硬膜外联合组 33% 对硬膜外穿刺组 25%),风险比 (95%CI) 0.75 (0.40-1.39);P = 0.486。结论与硬膜穿刺硬膜外麻醉技术相比,脊髓-硬膜外联合麻醉组患者在 15 分钟内的疼痛评分中位数(IQR [范围])明显较低(0 (0-1[0-8]) vs. 1 (0-4 [0-10]);p = 0.018)。
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
Anaesthesia
Anaesthesia 医学-麻醉学
CiteScore
21.20
自引率
9.30%
发文量
300
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: The official journal of the Association of Anaesthetists is Anaesthesia. It is a comprehensive international publication that covers a wide range of topics. The journal focuses on general and regional anaesthesia, as well as intensive care and pain therapy. It includes original articles that have undergone peer review, covering all aspects of these fields, including research on equipment.
期刊最新文献
The impact of out-of-hours elective surgery: is it worth the risk? Erector spinae plane block vs. rectus sheath block. Gastric ultrasound performance time and difficulty: a prospective observational study. Mandatory training for rare anaesthetic events or mandatory safety preparedness - the beatings will continue until morale improves, or is it time for a carrot and not a stick? Peri-operative corticosteroid supplementation guideline adherence
×
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