A randomized comparative study of 25-gauge vs. 27-gauge pencil-point spinal needles during dural puncture epidural anesthesia for elective cesarean section.

IF 1.7 Q2 ANESTHESIOLOGY Anaesthesiology intensive therapy Pub Date : 2025-03-21 DOI:10.5114/ait/200190
Reham Ali Abdelhaleem Abdelrahman, Reda Khalil Abdelrahman, Ibrahim Elsayed Ibrahim Elalfy, Ahmed Mohamed ElSharkawy, Mohamed Arafa Elsaid, Abdallah Elabd Hassan, Abdelkarem Hussini Ismail Elsayed, Ibrahim Elabd Hassan, Mohamed Abdelbadie
{"title":"A randomized comparative study of 25-gauge vs. 27-gauge pencil-point spinal needles during dural puncture epidural anesthesia for elective cesarean section.","authors":"Reham Ali Abdelhaleem Abdelrahman, Reda Khalil Abdelrahman, Ibrahim Elsayed Ibrahim Elalfy, Ahmed Mohamed ElSharkawy, Mohamed Arafa Elsaid, Abdallah Elabd Hassan, Abdelkarem Hussini Ismail Elsayed, Ibrahim Elabd Hassan, Mohamed Abdelbadie","doi":"10.5114/ait/200190","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Dural puncture epidural anesthesia (DPEA) has become effective during normal labor. There were insufficient data about DPEA during cesarean section (CS).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 110 ASA I and II parturients aged 20-35 years old underwent scheduled CS using DPEA with either 25G or 27G Whitacre needles. A T10 sensory block was achieved and maintained using a low concentration of bupivacaine with fentanyl through the epidural catheter until the end of surgery. Epidural extension anesthesia was initiated inside the operating room. The primary outcome was time taken from the start of epidural extension until achievement of bilateral T6 sensory block. The secondary outcome was quality of DPEA (composite).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The primary outcome, median (IQR) time to surgical anesthesia, was 9.12 (8.71-18.54) minutes in the 25G-DPEA group and 14.18 (12.43-23.56) minutes in the 27G-DPEA group. The difference in the onset time of sensory block between the 2 groups was 5.06 (3.72-5.02) min, which was statistically significant (HR: 2.3; 95% CI: 1.79-3.14%; P < 0.0001). Failure of DPEA was observed in 9 of 55 parturients (16.4%) in the 25-DPEA group compared with 37 of 55 parturients (67.3%) in the 27-DPEA group (OR = 0.095; 95% CI: 0.04-0.24 %; P < 0.0001). Adverse effects and neonatal outcomes were comparable between the two groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>25G-DPEA resulted in faster onset and improved block quality during epidural extension compared with 27G-DPEA. Further studies are needed to confirm these findings in the setting of intra-partum CS.</p>","PeriodicalId":7750,"journal":{"name":"Anaesthesiology intensive therapy","volume":"57 1","pages":"18-28"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anaesthesiology intensive therapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5114/ait/200190","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Dural puncture epidural anesthesia (DPEA) has become effective during normal labor. There were insufficient data about DPEA during cesarean section (CS).

Methods: A total of 110 ASA I and II parturients aged 20-35 years old underwent scheduled CS using DPEA with either 25G or 27G Whitacre needles. A T10 sensory block was achieved and maintained using a low concentration of bupivacaine with fentanyl through the epidural catheter until the end of surgery. Epidural extension anesthesia was initiated inside the operating room. The primary outcome was time taken from the start of epidural extension until achievement of bilateral T6 sensory block. The secondary outcome was quality of DPEA (composite).

Results: The primary outcome, median (IQR) time to surgical anesthesia, was 9.12 (8.71-18.54) minutes in the 25G-DPEA group and 14.18 (12.43-23.56) minutes in the 27G-DPEA group. The difference in the onset time of sensory block between the 2 groups was 5.06 (3.72-5.02) min, which was statistically significant (HR: 2.3; 95% CI: 1.79-3.14%; P < 0.0001). Failure of DPEA was observed in 9 of 55 parturients (16.4%) in the 25-DPEA group compared with 37 of 55 parturients (67.3%) in the 27-DPEA group (OR = 0.095; 95% CI: 0.04-0.24 %; P < 0.0001). Adverse effects and neonatal outcomes were comparable between the two groups.

Conclusions: 25G-DPEA resulted in faster onset and improved block quality during epidural extension compared with 27G-DPEA. Further studies are needed to confirm these findings in the setting of intra-partum CS.

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
择期剖宫产术硬膜外麻醉中25号与27号铅笔尖脊髓针的随机对照研究。
背景:硬膜穿刺硬膜外麻醉(DPEA)在正常分娩中已变得有效。有关剖宫产术(CS)中硬膜外麻醉的数据尚不充分:方法:110 名年龄在 20-35 岁之间的 ASA I 级和 II 级产妇接受了预定的 CS,使用 25G 或 27G Whitacre 针进行 DPEA。通过硬膜外导管使用低浓度布比卡因和芬太尼达到并维持 T10 感觉阻滞,直至手术结束。硬膜外延伸麻醉在手术室内启动。主要结果是从硬膜外延伸开始到实现双侧T6感觉阻滞所需的时间。次要结果是DPEA的质量(综合结果):主要结果是手术麻醉时间的中位数(IQR),25G-DPEA组为9.12(8.71-18.54)分钟,27G-DPEA组为14.18(12.43-23.56)分钟。两组的感觉阻滞起始时间相差 5.06 (3.72-5.02) 分钟,差异具有统计学意义(HR:2.3;95% CI:1.79-3.14%;P <0.0001)。25-DPEA组55名产妇中有9名(16.4%)出现DPEA失败,而27-DPEA组55名产妇中有37名(67.3%)出现DPEA失败(OR = 0.095; 95% CI: 0.04-0.24 %; P < 0.0001)。两组的不良反应和新生儿结局相当:结论:与27G-DPEA相比,25G-DPEA在硬膜外扩张时起效更快,阻滞质量更高。在产中CS的情况下,还需要进一步的研究来证实这些发现。
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
3.00
自引率
5.90%
发文量
48
审稿时长
25 weeks
期刊最新文献
Comparative analysis of prespinal analgesic techniques for enhancing spinal anesthesia quality in fractured neck of femur: a randomized clinical trial. Association between NT-proBNP and ivabradine in patients after noncardiac surgery: a per-protocol analysis of the PREVENT-MINS study. Exploring Pandora's box: a review of thoracic compartment syndrome. Trends in regional anaesthesia: insights from Anaesthesiology Intensive Therapy. Objective monitoring of acute pain and nociception in anaesthesia and intensive care: evidence and applications.
×
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:604180095
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