移除打结或卡住的硬膜外导管:病例报告的系统回顾。

Bikash Khadka, Apurb Sharma, Ashim Regmi, Anup Ghimire, Prajjwal Raj Bhattarai
{"title":"移除打结或卡住的硬膜外导管:病例报告的系统回顾。","authors":"Bikash Khadka,&nbsp;Apurb Sharma,&nbsp;Ashim Regmi,&nbsp;Anup Ghimire,&nbsp;Prajjwal Raj Bhattarai","doi":"10.17085/apm.23013","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The knotting or in vivo entrapment of epidural catheters is an uncommon but challenging issue for anesthesiologists. This study aimed to identify the possible causes behind entrapped epidural catheters and the effective methods for their removal.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic review of relevant case reports and series was conducted using the patient/population, intervention, comparison and outcome framework and keywords such as \"epidural,\" \"catheter,\" \"knotting,\" \"stuck,\" \"entrapped,\" and \"entrapment.\" The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement was followed, and the review protocol was registered with International Prospective Register for Systematic Reviews (CRD42021291266).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The analysis included 59 cases with a mean depth of catheter insertion from the skin of 11.825 cm and an average duration of 8.17 h for the detection of non-functioning catheters. In 27 cases (45.8%), a radiological knot was found, with an average length of 2.59 cm from the tip. The chi-squared test revealed a significant difference between the initial and final positions of catheter insertion (P = 0.049).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Deep insertion was the primary cause of epidural catheter entrapment. To remove the entrapped catheters, the lateral decubitus position should be attempted first, followed by the position used during insertion. Based on these findings, recommendations for the prevention and removal of entrapped catheters have been formulated.</p>","PeriodicalId":7801,"journal":{"name":"Anesthesia and pain medicine","volume":"18 3","pages":"315-324"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/ad/8c/apm-23013.PMC10410545.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Removing knotted or stuck epidural catheters: a systematic review of case reports.\",\"authors\":\"Bikash Khadka,&nbsp;Apurb Sharma,&nbsp;Ashim Regmi,&nbsp;Anup Ghimire,&nbsp;Prajjwal Raj Bhattarai\",\"doi\":\"10.17085/apm.23013\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The knotting or in vivo entrapment of epidural catheters is an uncommon but challenging issue for anesthesiologists. This study aimed to identify the possible causes behind entrapped epidural catheters and the effective methods for their removal.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic review of relevant case reports and series was conducted using the patient/population, intervention, comparison and outcome framework and keywords such as \\\"epidural,\\\" \\\"catheter,\\\" \\\"knotting,\\\" \\\"stuck,\\\" \\\"entrapped,\\\" and \\\"entrapment.\\\" The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement was followed, and the review protocol was registered with International Prospective Register for Systematic Reviews (CRD42021291266).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The analysis included 59 cases with a mean depth of catheter insertion from the skin of 11.825 cm and an average duration of 8.17 h for the detection of non-functioning catheters. In 27 cases (45.8%), a radiological knot was found, with an average length of 2.59 cm from the tip. The chi-squared test revealed a significant difference between the initial and final positions of catheter insertion (P = 0.049).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Deep insertion was the primary cause of epidural catheter entrapment. To remove the entrapped catheters, the lateral decubitus position should be attempted first, followed by the position used during insertion. Based on these findings, recommendations for the prevention and removal of entrapped catheters have been formulated.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7801,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Anesthesia and pain medicine\",\"volume\":\"18 3\",\"pages\":\"315-324\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/ad/8c/apm-23013.PMC10410545.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Anesthesia and pain medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.17085/apm.23013\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anesthesia and pain medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17085/apm.23013","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:硬膜外导管打结或体内夹持是一种罕见但具有挑战性的问题。本研究旨在确定硬膜外导管夹持的可能原因和有效的拔除方法。方法:采用患者/人群、干预措施、比较和结局框架以及“硬膜外”、“导管”、“打结”、“卡住”、“夹住”、“夹住”等关键词,对相关病例报告和系列进行系统回顾。遵循系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目声明,并在国际前瞻性系统评价注册(CRD42021291266)上注册了评价方案。结果:本组共纳入59例患者,平均植管深度11.825 cm,检测失效导管的平均时间为8.17 h。27例(45.8%)发现放射结,距尖端平均长度为2.59 cm。卡方检验显示,初始置管位置与最终置管位置差异有统计学意义(P = 0.049)。结论:深插入是硬膜外导管夹伤的主要原因。要取出夹住的导管,应首先尝试侧卧位,然后是插入时使用的位置。基于这些发现,制定了预防和清除夹持导管的建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

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
Removing knotted or stuck epidural catheters: a systematic review of case reports.

Background: The knotting or in vivo entrapment of epidural catheters is an uncommon but challenging issue for anesthesiologists. This study aimed to identify the possible causes behind entrapped epidural catheters and the effective methods for their removal.

Methods: A systematic review of relevant case reports and series was conducted using the patient/population, intervention, comparison and outcome framework and keywords such as "epidural," "catheter," "knotting," "stuck," "entrapped," and "entrapment." The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement was followed, and the review protocol was registered with International Prospective Register for Systematic Reviews (CRD42021291266).

Results: The analysis included 59 cases with a mean depth of catheter insertion from the skin of 11.825 cm and an average duration of 8.17 h for the detection of non-functioning catheters. In 27 cases (45.8%), a radiological knot was found, with an average length of 2.59 cm from the tip. The chi-squared test revealed a significant difference between the initial and final positions of catheter insertion (P = 0.049).

Conclusions: Deep insertion was the primary cause of epidural catheter entrapment. To remove the entrapped catheters, the lateral decubitus position should be attempted first, followed by the position used during insertion. Based on these findings, recommendations for the prevention and removal of entrapped catheters have been formulated.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Anesthetic neurotoxicity in the developing brain: an update on theinsights and implications for fetal surgery Extubation and removal of supraglottic airway devices in pediatric anesthesia Relationship between intraoperative requirement for anesthetics and postoperative analgesic consumption in laparoscopic colectomy: a randomized controlled double-blinded study Opioid-free anesthesia using a combination of ketamine and dexmedetomidine in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized controlled trial How does circadian rhythm affect postoperative pain after pediatric acute appendicitis surgery?
×
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