The contribution of needle size and other factors to headache following myelography

Needle gauge and tip designs for preventing post-dural puncture headache (PDPH)

BACKGROUND

Post-dural puncture headache (PDPH) is one of the most common complications of diagnostic and therapeutic lumbar punctures. PDPH is defined as any headache occurring after a lumbar puncture that worsens within 15 minutes of sitting or standing and is relieved within 15 minutes of the patient lying down. Researchers have suggested many types of interventions to help prevent PDPH. It has been suggested that aspects such as needle tip and gauge can be modified to decrease the incidence of PDPH.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of needle tip design (traumatic versus atraumatic) and diameter (gauge) on the prevention of PDPH in participants who have undergone dural puncture for diagnostic or therapeutic causes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and LILACS, as well as trial registries via the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) search portal in September 2016. We adopted the MEDLINE strategy for searching the other databases. The search terms we used were a combination of thesaurus-based and free-text terms for both interventions (lumbar puncture in neurological, anaesthesia or myelography settings) and headache.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) conducted in any clinical/research setting where dural puncture had been used in participants of all ages and both genders, which compared different tip designs or diameters for prevention of PDPH DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 70 studies in the review; 66 studies with 17,067 participants were included in the quantitative analysis. An additional 18 studies are awaiting classification and 12 are ongoing. Fifteen of the 18 studies awaiting classification mainly correspond to congress summaries published before 2010, in which the available information does not allow the complete evaluation of all their risks of bias and characteristics. Our main outcome was prevention of PDPH, but we also assessed the onset of severe PDPH, headache in general and adverse events. The quality of evidence was moderate for most of the outcomes mainly due to risk of bias issues. For the analysis, we undertook three main comparisons: 1) traumatic needles versus atraumatic needles; 2) larger gauge traumatic needles versus smaller gauge traumatic needles; and 3) larger gauge atraumatic needles versus smaller gauge atraumatic needles. For each main comparison, if data were available, we performed a subgroup analysis evaluating lumbar puncture indication, age and posture.For the first comparison, the use of traumatic needles showed a higher risk of onset of PDPH compared to atraumatic needles (36 studies, 9378 participants, risk ratio (RR) 2.14, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.72 to 2.67, I² = 9%).In the second comparison of traumatic needles, studies comparing various sizes of large and small gauges showed no significant difference in effects in terms of risk of PDPH, with the exception of one study comparing 26 and 27 gauge needles (one study, 658 participants, RR 6.47, 95% CI 2.55 to 16.43).In the third comparison of atraumatic needles, studies comparing various sizes of large and small gauges showed no significant difference in effects in terms of risk of PDPH.We observed no significant difference in the risk of paraesthesia, backache, severe PDPH and any headache between traumatic and atraumatic needles. Sensitivity analyses of PDPH results between traumatic and atraumatic needles omitting high risk of bias studies showed similar results regarding the benefit of atraumatic needles in the prevention of PDPH (three studies, RR 2.78, 95% CI 1.26 to 6.15; I² = 51%).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is moderate-quality evidence that atraumatic needles reduce the risk of post-dural puncture headache (PDPH) without increasing adverse events such as paraesthesia or backache. The studies did not report very clearly on aspects related to randomization, such as random sequence generation and allocation concealment, making it difficult to interpret the risk of bias in the included studies. The moderate quality of the evidence for traumatic versus atraumatic needles suggests that further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect.

Epidural blood patch for management of postdural puncture headache in adolescents

BACKGROUND

In some patients spinal puncture (SP) is followed by postdural puncture headache (PDPH). When the symptoms of PDPH are severe and are not relieved within a few days an epidural blood patch (EBP) might be performed. The aim of this survey was to review requests for EBPs and to evaluate the effectiveness of EBP in patients aged 13-18 years during a 6.5 year period ending in June 2001.

METHODS

The Information System Patient Measures Database was interrogated to identify patients who were referred for EBP. After identification, the patients' medical records were reviewed in detail for the characteristics of PDPH and other symptoms, and for the effectiveness of the EBP.

RESULTS

Forty-two EBPs were performed after 40 SPs on 37 patients (24 girls, 13 boys). Epidural blood patches were performed twice in five patients. The reasons for repeating the procedure were repeat SP with new PDPH in three patients and an unsatisfactory effect in two patients. Twenty-eight of the 40 spinal punctures (70%) had been performed for diagnostic use and 10 (25%) for spinal anesthesia. Two patients (5%) developed PDPH after inadvertent dural puncture with an epidural needle. In 37 cases the criteria for PDPH were fulfilled, and one patient had a cerebrospinal fluid fistula headache. Two-thirds of the girls had associated symptoms of headache compared with one-third of the boys. Epidural blood patch was performed 1-22 days after SP with 0.2 ml/kg (mean) of autologous blood injected into the epidural space. The success rate of the first injection was 37 out of 40 EBP (93%), and the second injection was effective in both patients with recurred PDPH.

CONCLUSION

Epidural blood patch seems to be an effective and safe procedure in adolescents for treating severe and persistent PDPH.

Clinical experience with iomeprol in myelography and myelo-CT: clinical pharmacology and double-blind comparisons with iopamidol, iohexol, and iotrolan

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

To evaluate iomeprol, a new nonionic iodinated contrast medium, as a contrast agent for myelography and to compare it with iopamidol, iohexol, and iotrolan.

METHODS

An extensive clinical program was conducted on more than 600 patients to assess iomeprol's pharmacokinetics, tolerability, safety, and efficacy after intrathecal injection.

RESULTS

Pharmacokinetics study results showed that after intrathecal administration iomeprol is completely absorbed from the cerebrospinal fluid compartment; once absorbed into the systemic circulation, it is rapidly excreted, unmetabolized, by glomerular filtration. Dose-finding studies showed that the opacification produced by iomeprol depends on the injected dose. Although a dose-dependent increase in efficacy was observed, no differences in neurotolerability and safety were detected between the doses tested. Doses of iomeprol greater than 3 g I did not cause a greater incidence of adverse events and produced significantly better contrast efficacy. Comparative clinical trials showed that iomeprol and iopamidol, iohexol, and iotrolan always provided adequate opacification of the subarachnoid space, both in conventional myelography and myelo-CT, with adequate delineation of normal structures and pathologic processes. No serious adverse events occurred up to a total dose of 4.5 g I. No differences between the agents with regard to tolerance, adverse events, and effects on vital signs, physical examination, and neurologic examination were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Iomeprol is safe and effective and can be recommended for myelography and myelo-CT.

Is the pencil point spinal needle a better choice in younger patients? A comparison of 24G Sprotte with 27G Quincke needles in an unselected group of general surgical patients below 46 years of age

Reports have indicated that there are less postoperative complaints after the use of pencil pointed spinal needles. We compared a 24G Sprotte needle with a 27G Quincke needle in a randomised study of 200 healthy patients (49% females), aged 15-46 years. Four patients (2%) reported postdural puncture headache, three with the 24G Sprotte needle and one with the 27G Quincke needle. Thirteen patients (7%) suffered with nonspecific headache, with no significant difference between the two groups. Of the 57 (29%) who reported backpain, a significantly higher proportion had received spinal anaesthesia with the Sprotte needle (OR = 2.06). There was a significantly higher incidence of insufficient blocks after dural puncture with the Sprotte needle. Ease of needle insertion and number of puncture attempts was the same for both needle types.