Incidence of post-dural puncture headache: A comparison of quinckes' versus whitacres' spinal needles

J. Irkal, S. Reddy, Diddi Krishn, A. Bhardwaj
{"title":"Incidence of post-dural puncture headache: A comparison of quinckes' versus whitacres' spinal needles","authors":"J. Irkal, S. Reddy, Diddi Krishn, A. Bhardwaj","doi":"10.4103/kaj.kaj_2_17","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Repeated attempts at insertion, block failure, and post-dural puncture headache are the most common drawbacks of spinal anesthesia. This study was designed to re-evaluate these untoward effects of subarachnoid block. The primary aim of the study is to compare the incidence of post-dural puncture headache with 25-gauge Quincke's and Whitacre's spinal needles. The secondary objectives include assessing the difference in attempt rate and failure rate during subarachnoid block. Materials and Methods: In this randomized prospective study, 100 American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I and II adult patients of both sex undergoing surgery below umbilicus under subarachnoid block were assigned in to two equal groups of 50 each; they were to receive spinal anesthesia either with Quincke's (group QC) or Whitacre's (group WP) spinal needles. The incidence of post-dural puncture headache, number of attempts required for successful insertion, and frequency of failed subarachnoid block were recorded. Data obtained were analyzed using t-test and Chi-square test. A value of P < 0.05 was deemed as statistically significant. Results: All the 100 patients completed the study. Significantly high rate (P = 0.009) of post-dural puncture headache was recorded in Quincke group (18%) as compared to Whitacre group (2%). In addition, the number of attempts required were less with Whitacre's needle; however, no statically significant association between the type of the needle, attempt rate, and failure rate during spinal anesthesia could be detected (P = 0.2425). Conclusion: Overall to reduce the number of attempts and the incidence of post-dural puncture headache, Whitacre's 25-gauge spinal needle has better option than Quincke's 25-gauge spinal needle for subarachnoid block.","PeriodicalId":17751,"journal":{"name":"Karnataka Anaesthesia Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Karnataka Anaesthesia Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/kaj.kaj_2_17","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Background: Repeated attempts at insertion, block failure, and post-dural puncture headache are the most common drawbacks of spinal anesthesia. This study was designed to re-evaluate these untoward effects of subarachnoid block. The primary aim of the study is to compare the incidence of post-dural puncture headache with 25-gauge Quincke's and Whitacre's spinal needles. The secondary objectives include assessing the difference in attempt rate and failure rate during subarachnoid block. Materials and Methods: In this randomized prospective study, 100 American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I and II adult patients of both sex undergoing surgery below umbilicus under subarachnoid block were assigned in to two equal groups of 50 each; they were to receive spinal anesthesia either with Quincke's (group QC) or Whitacre's (group WP) spinal needles. The incidence of post-dural puncture headache, number of attempts required for successful insertion, and frequency of failed subarachnoid block were recorded. Data obtained were analyzed using t-test and Chi-square test. A value of P < 0.05 was deemed as statistically significant. Results: All the 100 patients completed the study. Significantly high rate (P = 0.009) of post-dural puncture headache was recorded in Quincke group (18%) as compared to Whitacre group (2%). In addition, the number of attempts required were less with Whitacre's needle; however, no statically significant association between the type of the needle, attempt rate, and failure rate during spinal anesthesia could be detected (P = 0.2425). Conclusion: Overall to reduce the number of attempts and the incidence of post-dural puncture headache, Whitacre's 25-gauge spinal needle has better option than Quincke's 25-gauge spinal needle for subarachnoid block.
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
硬脊膜穿刺后头痛的发生率:quinckes与whitacres脊髓针的比较
背景:反复尝试插入、阻滞失败和硬脊膜穿刺后头痛是脊髓麻醉最常见的缺点。本研究旨在重新评估蛛网膜下腔阻滞的不良影响。该研究的主要目的是比较25号昆克和惠塔克脊髓针对硬脊膜穿刺后头痛的发生率。次要目的包括评估蛛网膜下腔阻滞中尝试率和失败率的差异。材料和方法:在这项随机前瞻性研究中,100名美国麻醉师学会物理状态I和II的成人患者在蛛网膜下腔阻滞下接受脐下手术,被分为两组,每组50人;采用Quincke (QC组)或Whitacre (WP组)脊髓针进行脊髓麻醉。记录硬脑膜穿刺后头痛的发生率、成功插入所需的次数和蛛网膜下腔阻滞失败的频率。所得资料采用t检验和卡方检验进行分析。P < 0.05为差异有统计学意义。结果:100例患者全部完成研究。Quincke组硬膜穿刺后头痛发生率(18%)明显高于Whitacre组(2%)(P = 0.009)。此外,使用惠塔克针所需的尝试次数更少;然而,在脊髓麻醉过程中,针头类型、尝试率和失败率之间没有统计学意义上的显著关联(P = 0.2425)。结论:总的来说,在减少硬膜穿刺后头痛的次数和发生率方面,Whitacre 25号脊髓针优于Quincke 25号脊髓针用于蛛网膜下腔阻滞。
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
A bizarre scenario during lung isolation due to interchanged double-lumen tube connectors Anesthetic management of a case of cleidocranial dysplasia Flexible intubation videoscope-guided replacement of tracheostomy tube in a carcinoma larynx patient with extensive subglottic involvement Comparative study of hemodynamic changes using proseal laryngeal mask airway, intubating laryngeal mask airway or laryngoscopic endotracheal intubation under general anesthesia in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting surgery A patient with Cushing's disease for pituitary tumor resection: Anesthetic challenges and management
×
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