Intrathecal catheter after accidental dural puncture in obstetric patients: Safety and effectiveness reducing post-dural puncture headache.

Gerard Moreno Giménez, Martha Cristina Melo Cruz, Marta Ferrándiz Mach, Sergi Sabaté Tenas
{"title":"Intrathecal catheter after accidental dural puncture in obstetric patients: Safety and effectiveness reducing post-dural puncture headache.","authors":"Gerard Moreno Giménez, Martha Cristina Melo Cruz, Marta Ferrándiz Mach, Sergi Sabaté Tenas","doi":"10.1016/j.redare.2024.501671","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Post-dural puncture headache (PDPH) after an accidental dural puncture (ADP) is a common complication in obstetric analgesia. It has been proposed that inserting an intrathecal catheter (ITC) after an ADP may reduce PDPH incidence and the need for therapeutic epidural blood patch (EBP). Our primary objective was to assess if the insertion of an ITC after an ADP reduces the incidence of PDPH in obstetric patients. Secondary objectives included evaluating EBP requirements and ITC-related complications.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a retrospective study of all obstetric patients with a documented ADP during their labour analgesia between January 2018 to December 2022. Data from the patients in whom an ITC was inserted and those with a repeated epidural were compared.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Over our 5-year study period, 35 cases of ADP were documented. Of these, 16 patients (45.7%) received an ITC for 24 hours, while 19 (54.3%) underwent epidural re-siting. No significant difference was observed in PDPH incidence between ITC and re-sited epidural groups (62.5% vs 68.4%; RR 0.84; P = 0.713), nor in EBP requirement (18.8% vs 31.6%; RR 0.84; P = 0.387). Follow-up duration did not differ significantly between groups and no ITC-related complications were reported within 1 month.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our findings align with previously reported literature, indicating a trend favoring ITC utilization. In addition to the potential benefit of reducing CPPD incidence, their use is safe and provides quality analgesia with rapid onset.</p><p><strong>Irb number: </strong>IIBSP-CEF-2022-146.</p>","PeriodicalId":94196,"journal":{"name":"Revista espanola de anestesiologia y reanimacion","volume":" ","pages":"501671"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista espanola de anestesiologia y reanimacion","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.redare.2024.501671","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

Background: Post-dural puncture headache (PDPH) after an accidental dural puncture (ADP) is a common complication in obstetric analgesia. It has been proposed that inserting an intrathecal catheter (ITC) after an ADP may reduce PDPH incidence and the need for therapeutic epidural blood patch (EBP). Our primary objective was to assess if the insertion of an ITC after an ADP reduces the incidence of PDPH in obstetric patients. Secondary objectives included evaluating EBP requirements and ITC-related complications.

Methods: We conducted a retrospective study of all obstetric patients with a documented ADP during their labour analgesia between January 2018 to December 2022. Data from the patients in whom an ITC was inserted and those with a repeated epidural were compared.

Results: Over our 5-year study period, 35 cases of ADP were documented. Of these, 16 patients (45.7%) received an ITC for 24 hours, while 19 (54.3%) underwent epidural re-siting. No significant difference was observed in PDPH incidence between ITC and re-sited epidural groups (62.5% vs 68.4%; RR 0.84; P = 0.713), nor in EBP requirement (18.8% vs 31.6%; RR 0.84; P = 0.387). Follow-up duration did not differ significantly between groups and no ITC-related complications were reported within 1 month.

Conclusions: Our findings align with previously reported literature, indicating a trend favoring ITC utilization. In addition to the potential benefit of reducing CPPD incidence, their use is safe and provides quality analgesia with rapid onset.

Irb number: IIBSP-CEF-2022-146.

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
产科病人意外硬脑膜穿刺后鞘内置管:减少硬脑膜穿刺后头痛的安全性和有效性。
背景:意外硬膜穿刺(ADP)后硬膜穿刺头痛(PDPH)是产科镇痛的常见并发症。有研究表明,ADP后插入鞘内导管(ITC)可能降低PDPH的发生率和治疗性硬膜外血贴(EBP)的需要。我们的主要目的是评估ADP后插入ITC是否能降低产科患者PDPH的发生率。次要目标包括评估EBP要求和与tc相关的并发症。方法:我们对2018年1月至2022年12月期间分娩镇痛期间记录在案的所有ADP产科患者进行了回顾性研究。将ITC与重复硬膜外麻醉患者的数据进行比较。结果:在我们5年的研究期间,记录了35例ADP。其中,16例(45.7%)患者接受了24小时的ITC, 19例(54.3%)患者接受了硬膜外重新定位。ITC组与硬膜外组的PDPH发生率无显著差异(62.5% vs 68.4%;RR 0.84;P = 0.713), EBP需求也没有差异(18.8% vs 31.6%;RR 0.84;P = 0.387)。随访时间组间无显著差异,1个月内未见tc相关并发症。结论:我们的发现与先前报道的文献一致,表明了有利于ITC使用的趋势。除了减少CPPD发病率的潜在益处外,它们的使用是安全的,并提供快速起效的高质量镇痛。Irb编号:IIBSP-CEF-2022-146。
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
0
期刊最新文献
Postoperative anaemia is associated with poor long term postoperative outcomes after elective colorectal oncologic surgery within an enhanced recovery after surgery pathway. Preoperative haemoglobin as a predictor of in-hospital morbidity and 5-year mortality in colorectal cancer. Anaesthesetic considerations in the perioperative management of patients with hereditary angioedema-FXII. Multicentre cohort study on the prevalence of postoperative delirium 48 hours after surgery: "DELPO study" protocol. Importance of training in anesthesia systems technology.
×
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