The effect of prior dural puncture on cisternal cerebrospinal fluid morphine concentrations in sheep after administration of lumbar epidural morphine

Labor Analgesia Onset With Dural Puncture Epidural Versus Traditional Epidural Using a 26-Gauge Whitacre Needle and 0.125% Bupivacaine Bolus: A Randomized Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

Lumbar epidurals (LEs) provide excellent analgesia. Combined spinal epidural and dural puncture epidural (DPE) are 2 techniques to expedite neuraxial analgesia onset. In DPE, dura is punctured but medication is not administered in the cerebrospinal fluid. Expedited analgesia onset has been demonstrated with DPE, using 0.25% bupivacaine; however, this concentration may impede an unassisted vaginal birth and is not currently used for induction and maintenance of labor analgesia. The primary goal of this study was to compare the percentage of patients who achieved adequate labor analgesia following DPE or LE with an epidural bolus of 0.125% bupivacaine. Adequate labor analgesia was defined as Visual Analog Scale (VAS) measurement ≤ 10 mm on a 100-mm scale during active contractions, measured 10 minutes after epidural bolus initiation.

METHODS

Laboring patients were randomly assigned to receive LE or DPE. Immediately before epidural placement, subjects marked a VAS score during an active contraction and parturients with VAS < 50 mm were excluded. The epidural space was identified by a loss of resistance technique to saline (17G Tuohy needle [Arrow International, Inc, Redding, PA]). In the DPE group, dura was punctured with a 26G Whitacre needle (Arrow International, Inc). In all participants, a 19G epidural catheter (Arrow International, Inc) was inserted. An epidural bolus was then administered over 3 minutes (12 mL, 0.125% bupivacaine, 50 μg fentanyl) followed by infusion (0.1% bupivacaine, 2 μg/mL fentanyl). After initiation of epidural bolus (time zero), VAS measurements were collected at 2-minute intervals for up to 20 minutes. Median time to achieve adequate analgesia by treatment group was assessed by Kaplan-Meier analysis. Time to achieving adequate analgesia was evaluated using a Cox regression model. All analyses were conducted in SAS version 9.4. (SAS Institute, Cary, NC) RESULTS:: Data were analyzed from 80 participants (40 per group). Adequate analgesia at 10 minutes did not differ by neuraxial technique (DPE = 55.3% vs LE = 44.7%; P= .256). However, parturients receiving DPE had shorter median times to adequate analgesia (median [95% confidence interval], 8 minutes [6-10] vs 10 minutes [8-14]) and a 67% increase in the relative risk of achieving adequate analgesia compared to LE (relative risk = 1.67; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-2.64; P= .042).

CONCLUSIONS

Although the percentage of parturients achieving adequate labor analgesia at 10 minutes after epidural bolus did not differ by technique, DPE was associated with faster time to VAS ≤ 10 mm compared with LE.

Dural tear of unusual cause

Epidural analgesia is highly recommended in cancer anorectal surgery. In addition to the fight against pain it provides some benefit in allowing early rehabilitation of patients. One of the risks of this practice is the dural tear creating a cerebrospinal fluid leak (CSF) in the epidural space (EPD). Clinical features the typical positional headache, a procession of various more or less severe symptoms: nausea, vomiting, dizziness, visual or hearing impairment or radicular pain. We report a dural of unusual cause secondary of the obstruction of tuohy catheter by vertebral cartilage.

Combined spinal-epidural anesthesia using a reduced-dose of spinal bupivacaine and epidural top up leads to faster motor recovery after lower extremity surgeries

Background

The purpose of the present study is to investigate the anesthetic effect of reduced doses of spinal bupivacaine with epidural top ups in comparison with those of spinal bupivacaine and to determine the adequate doses of drugs used during lower extremity surgeries.

Methods

Sixty adult patients were randomized to three different technique groups: S group (10 mg of spinal bupivacaine), SE1 group (7.5 mg of spinal bupivacaine + epidural 1.5% lidocaine 10 ml) or SE2 group (5 mg of spinal bupivacaine + epidural 1.5% lidocaine 10 ml). The level of sensory block, modified Bromage motor scores (MBS), systolic blood pressure and heart rate were recorded for 30 min following anesthesia. Peak sensory block height and MBS, time for sensory regression to L1 and motor recovery to MBS 1, side effects and operator's satisfaction were noted.

Results

The levels of peak sensory block were similar among the groups (P > 0.05). For the SE2 group, the regression to the L1 dermatome was faster (P = 0.004) and the maximum MBS was lower (P = 0.001) than that of the other two groups. Motor block recovery to MBS 1 was faster for the SE1 and SE2 groups than for the S group (P < 0.001). The operator's satisfaction scores of the SE2 group were lower than those of the other two groups (P = 0.019).

Conclusions

During combined spinal-epidural anesthesia, 7.5 mg of spinal bupivacaine and epidural 1.5% lidocaine 10 ml produced faster motor recovery than did 10 mg of spinal bupivacaine in patients undergoing lower extremity surgeries.

A randomized trial of breakthrough pain during combined spinal-epidural versus epidural labor analgesia in parous women

BACKGROUND

There is controversy regarding the benefits and risks of combined spinal-epidural compared with epidural analgesia (CSE, EPID) for labor analgesia. We hypothesized that CSE would result in fewer patient requests for top-up doses compared to EPID.

METHODS

One-hundred ASA physical status I or II parous women at term in early labor (<5 cm cervical dilation) requesting analgesia were randomized in double-blind fashion to the EPID group (epidural bupivacaine 2.5 mg/mL, 3 mL, followed by bupivacaine 1.25 mg/mL, 10 mL with fentanyl 50 microg) or the CSE group (intrathecal bupivacaine 2.5 mg with fentanyl 25 microg). Both groups received identical infusions of bupivacaine 0.625 mg/mL with fentanyl 2 microg/mL at 12 mL/h. The primary outcome variable was the number of top-up doses requested to treat breakthrough pain.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference between the two groups in the percentage of patients requesting top-up doses (44% CSE vs 51% EPID; 95% confidence interval of the difference -28% to +14%) nor in the need for multiple top-up doses (14% CSE vs 15% EPID). Visual analog scale scores were lower in the CSE group compared to the EPID group at 10 min after initiation of analgesia [median 0 cm (0, 0) vs 4 cm (1, 6) respectively, P < 0.001] and at 30 min [0 cm (0, 0) vs 0 cm (0, 1), respectively, P = 0.03].

CONCLUSIONS

We did not find a difference in the need for top-up doses in parous patients; however, CSE provided better analgesia in the first 30 min compared to EPID.