Sequential higher epidural catheter re-insertion after accidental dural puncture ameliorates the frequency and severity of post-dural puncture headache

Laryngeal mask general anaesthesia versus spinal anaesthesia for promoting early recovery of cervical conisation: A randomised, controlled clinical study

Background

Although both spinal and general anaesthesia provides good anaesthesia for cervical conization, spinal anaesthesia delays the return of lower limb movements and urinary function, whereas general anaesthesia requires the patient to be unconscious. It is unclear which anaesthetic technique is more conducive to early postoperative recovery in patients undergoing cervical conization.

Patients and methods

140 patients undergoing cervical conization underwent either laryngeal mask general anaesthesia (LMA, n = 70) or spinal anaesthesia (SA, n = 70). In the LMA group, an i-gel mask was used for airway management. In the SA group, spinal anaesthesia was received with 0.75% ropivacaine (15 mg) in the L3-4 interval. The quality of recovery score (QoR-15) was the primary endpoint of the study. Secondary endpoints included incidence of adverse 24-h analgesia (NRS>3); return of lower limb activity; first bed activity and feeding; and the number of catheters removed at 6, 12 and 24 h postoperatively.

Result

The LMA group significantly improved QoR-15 scores (136.62 ± 11.02 vs 119.97 ± 12.75; P < 0.001); and reduced the incidence of poor analgesia (NRS >3) within 24 h postoperatively (20% vs 42.8%, P = 0.006); reduced time in bed (15.62 ± 3.83 h vs 18.27 ± 5.57 vs, P = 0.001); improved patient satisfaction (86% vs 27%; P < 0.001); and catheters removal within 24 h (70/70 vs 42/70, P < 0.001).

Conclusion

LMA general anaesthesia can facilitate early postoperative recovery in patients undergoing cervical conization compared with conventional spinal anaesthesia.

Trial registration

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ID: ChiCTR1800019384), http://www.chictr.org.cn/listbycreater.aspx (08/11/2018).

A Comparison of the Incidence of Post-Dural Puncture Headache and Backache After Spinal Anesthesia: A Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Although bed rest is recommended after spinal anesthesia to prevent the occurrence of post-dural puncture headache, current literature suggests that periods of bed rest did not prevent headache as well as increase the risk of other complications such as backache. However, information is scarce regarding an appropriate period of bed rest following a dural puncture.

AIM

The aim of this study was to compare the incidence of post-dural puncture headache and backache after different periods of bed rest following spinal anesthesia.

METHODS

This study was a pragmatic, parallel-group, blinded, and randomized controlled trial (trial registration number KCT0001797). A total of 119 patients who underwent surgery under spinal anesthesia participated in this study from December 2013 to June 2014. The participants were randomly allocated to three groups: the immediate mobilization group (n = 45), 4-hour bed rest group (n = 40), and 6-hour bed rest group (n = 34). The severity of headache and backache was measured using the Dittmann scale and a visual analogue scale, respectively. Data were collected for 5 consecutive days postoperatively by one researcher blind to the group allocation.

RESULTS

No significant difference in the incidence of headache among the three groups was detected. However, the incidence of backache in the 6-hour bed rest group was higher and was significantly more severe than the other groups.

LINKING EVIDENCE TO ACTION

Bed rest after spinal anesthesia did not prevent the occurrence of headache and increased the incidence of patients experiencing a backache and, therefore, is not recommended. The findings provide information for establishing evidence-based nursing practices for patients after a dural puncture.