Lower incidence of postdural puncture headache using whitacre spinal needles after spinal anesthesia: A meta-analysis

Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines on postdural puncture headache: a consensus report from a multisociety international working group

INTRODUCTION

Postdural puncture headache (PDPH) can follow unintentional dural puncture during epidural techniques or intentional dural puncture during neuraxial procedures such as a lumbar puncture or spinal anesthesia. Evidence-based guidance on the prevention, diagnosis or management of this condition is, however, currently lacking. This multisociety guidance aims to fill this void and provide practitioners with comprehensive information and patient-centric recommendations to prevent, diagnose and manage patients with PDPH.

METHODS

Based on input from committee members and stakeholders, the committee cochairs developed 10 review questions deemed important for the prevention, diagnosis and management of PDPH. A literature search for each question was performed in MEDLINE (Ovid) on 2 March 2022. The results from each search were imported into separate Covidence projects for deduplication and screening, followed by data extraction. Additional relevant clinical trials, systematic reviews and research studies published through March 2022 were also considered for the development of guidelines and shared with contributors. Each group submitted a structured narrative review along with recommendations graded according to the US Preventative Services Task Force grading of evidence. The interim draft was shared electronically, with each collaborator requested to vote anonymously on each recommendation using two rounds of a modified Delphi approach.

RESULTS

Based on contemporary evidence and consensus, the multidisciplinary panel generated 50 recommendations to provide guidance regarding risk factors, prevention, diagnosis and management of PDPH, along with their strength and certainty of evidence. After two rounds of voting, we achieved a high level of consensus for all statements and recommendations. Several recommendations had moderate-to-low certainty of evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

These clinical practice guidelines for PDPH provide a framework to improve identification, evaluation and delivery of evidence-based care by physicians performing neuraxial procedures to improve the quality of care and align with patients' interests. Uncertainty remains regarding best practice for the majority of management approaches for PDPH due to the paucity of evidence. Additionally, opportunities for future research are identified.

Risk Factors in Administering Spinal Anesthesia: A Comprehensive Review

Numerous advantages, including a quick start and consistent anesthesia, are provided by spinal anesthesia, a method often utilized in contemporary medicine for various surgical operations. However, it has some hazards, just like any medical procedure. With an emphasis on identifying and assessing the risk factors associated with administering spinal anesthesia, the review analyzes published literature and clinical investigations carried out in the field of anesthesia. Various key factors, including technique-related procedural and patient-related aspects, can influence the effectiveness of spinal anesthesia. Among these factors are age, sex, body mass index, concurrent conditions (such as cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and respiratory problems), pre-existing neurological issues, allergies, and a history of adverse responses to anesthesia drugs. Additionally, the chance of problems might be increased by physical abnormalities or malformations in the spinal canal and vertebral column. The safety and effectiveness of spinal anesthesia depend significantly on procedural factors, such as the type and dosage of anesthesia agents administered and the patient's position and alignment maintained during the entire surgical procedure and the injection rate. Increased risks can also be caused by inadequate monitoring and a slow response to unfavorable circumstances. Risk factors related to the technique include the expertise and competency of the anesthesiologist or medical professional carrying out the procedure. Inadequate post-procedure monitoring, inadvertent dural puncture, and improper needle placement might lead to complications during or after the spinal anesthesia administration. This review emphasizes the need for a complete preoperative assessment, suitable patient selection, and rigorous procedural planning to reduce the likelihood of problems during the administration of spinal anesthesia. It also emphasizes the significance of ongoing monitoring and timely management of adverse events to guarantee patient safety and the best results. Healthcare professionals may put preventative measures in place and follow best practices to limit possible consequences efficiently by recognizing the risk factors associated with spinal anesthesia. This review helps encourage safer anesthesia practices and improve patient care as medical knowledge and technology advance. However, further study and evidence-based recommendations are required to enhance patient outcomes and risk assessment.

Optimized Method of Unilateral Spinal Anesthesia: A Double-blind, Randomized Clinical Study

Background

Unilateral spinal anesthesia is often accompanied by technical difficulties in implementation, multiple puncture attempts, unsuccessful punctures, and, as a result, insufficient anesthesia, along with various complications associated with a dural puncture.

Objectives

This work compares the efficacy and safety of conventional Unilateral Spinal Anesthesia (USpA) and unilateral spinal anesthesia with electrical nerve stimulation (USpA+ENS).

Methods

A total of 134 patients with an upcoming vascular surgery on one lower extremity were randomly assigned to two groups. All the patients were positioned with the operated limb below and used 7.5 mg of Bupivacaine-Spinal®. In the UsPA group, anesthesia was performed according to the standard technique. In the USpA+ENS group, electrical nerve stimulation was additionally used. Primary outcomes were the presence or absence of post-dural puncture headache (PDPH), number of puncture attempts, lateralization, and anesthesia adequacy. Secondary outcomes were intraoperative pain scores, the presence or absence of nausea and vomiting, and the need for hemodynamics correction.

Results

The frequency of puncture complications was sufficiently lower in the USpA+ENS group than in the UsPA group. The local anesthetic solution distribution, pain score indicators, and secondary outcomes were comparable in both groups with a slight difference.

Conclusions

We showed that USpA+ENS reduces the incidence of puncture complications and improves the quality of anesthesia and adherence of both patients and anesthesiologists to the unilateral spinal anesthesia technique.

[Postdural puncture headache in obstetrics : Pathogenesis, diagnostics and treatment]

Postdural puncture headache (PDPH) is one of the most important complications of peripartum neuraxial analgesia. Loss of cerebrospinal fluid volume and pressure as well as compensatory intracranial vasodilation are assumed to be responsible. Potentially severe long-term sequelae necessitate the correct diagnosis of PDPH, exclusion of relevant differential diagnoses (with atypical symptoms and when indicated via imaging techniques) and rapid initiation of effective treatment. Nonopioid analgesics, caffeine and occasionally theophylline, gabapentin and hydrocortisone are the cornerstones of pharmacological treatment, while the timely placement of an autologous epidural blood patch (EBP) represents the gold standard procedure when symptoms persist despite the use of analgesics. Procedures using neural treatment are promising alternatives, especially when an EBP is not desired by the patient or is contraindicated. Interdisciplinary and interprofessional consensus standard procedures can contribute to optimization of the clinical management of this relevant complication.

Long-term morbidities following unintentional dural puncture in obstetric patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To investigate the association of unintentional dural puncture (UDP) and postdural puncture headache (PDPH) with the risk of chronic headache, backache, neckache and depression. We also investigated if epidural blood patch (EBP) is associated with reduced risk of these morbidities.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

PATIENTS

Pregnant women who experienced UDP and/or PDPH versus those who had uneventful neuraxial procedures, and women who received EBP versus those who did not.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS

Primary outcomes were headache, backache, and neckache lasting ≥12 months, and depression ≥1 month. Secondary outcomes included chronic headache, backache, and neckache persisting ≥1 and ≥ 6 months, and the effects of EBP on those outcomes at ≥1 and ≥ 12 months. Subgroup analyses of prospective studies and sensitivity analyses of primary outcomes excluding poor quality studies were performed.

MAIN RESULTS

Twelve studies compared 6541 women with UDP and/or PDPH versus 1,004,510 with uncomplicated neuraxial procedures. Eight studies compared EBP (n = 3610) with no EBP (n = 3154). UDP and/or PDPH were associated with increased risk of headache (RR 3.95; 95%CI 2.13 to 7.34; I2 42%), backache (RR 2.72; 95%CI 2.04 to 3.62; I2 1%), and neckache (RR 8.09; 95%CI 1.03 to 63.35) persisting ≥12 months, and depression (RR 3.12; 95%CI 1.44 to 6.77; I2 90%) lasting ≥1 month. Results were consistent in analyses at ≥1 and ≥ 6 months, subgroup analyses of prospective studies, and after exclusion of one poor-quality study from our primary outcome. EBP was not associated with significant reduction in the risk of long-term morbidities.

CONCLUSIONS

UDP and/or PDPH were associated with increased risk of chronic headache, backache, neckache, and depression. EBP was not associated with a significant reduction in those risks, but this conclusion is limited by the heterogeneity of current data and lack of information on the success of EBP in relieving acute PDPH symptoms.

Postdural Puncture Headache-Risks and Current Treatment

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This manuscript aims to review the risks and the current treatments for postdural puncture headache (PDPH).

RECENT FINDINGS

PDPH is a relatively frequent complication after neuraxial blocks. It is typically orthostatic in nature, presenting as a positional and dull aching or throbbing headache, with added dysregulation of auditory and/or visual signals. Certain characteristics, such as female sex and young age, may predispose patients to the development of PDPH, as may factors such as previous PDPH, bearing down during the second stage of labor, and the neuraxial technique itself. Long-term complications including chronic headache for years following dural puncture have brought into question of the historical classification of PDPH as a self-limiting headache. So far, the underlying mechanism governing PDPH remains under investigation, while a wide variety of prophylactic and therapeutic measures have been explored with various degree of success. In case of mild PDPH, conservative management involving bed rest and pharmacological management should be used as first-line treatment. Nerve blocks are highly efficient alternatives for PDPH patients who do not respond well to conservative treatment. In case of moderate-to-severe PDPH, epidural blood patch remains the therapy of choice. An interdisciplinary approach to care for patients with PDPH is recommended to achieve optimal outcomes.

The association between post-dural puncture headache and needle type during spinal anaesthesia: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Post-dural puncture headache is one of the most undesirable complications of spinal anaesthesia. Previous pairwise meta-analyses have either compared groups of needles or ranked individual needles based on the pooled incidence of post-dural puncture headache. These analyses have suggested both the gauge and needle tip design as risk-factors, but failed to provide an unbiased comparison of individual needles. This network meta-analysis compared the odds of post-dural puncture headache with needles of varying gauge and tip design. We searched randomised controlled trials in medical databases. The primary outcome measure of the network meta-analysis was the incidence of post-dural puncture headache. Secondary outcomes were procedural failure, backache and non-specific headache. Overall, we compared 11 different needles in 61 randomised controlled trials including a total of 14,961 participants. The probability of post-dural puncture headache and procedural failure was lowest with 26-G atraumatic needles. The 29-G cutting needle was more likely than three atraumatic needles to have the lowest odds of post-dural puncture headache, although with increased risk of procedural failure. The probability rankings were: 26 atraumatic > 27 atraumatic > 29 cutting > 24 atraumatic > 22 atraumatic > 25 atraumatic > 23 cutting > 22 cutting > 25 cutting > 27 cutting = 26 cutting for post-dural puncture headache; and 26 atraumatic > 25 cutting > 22 cutting > 24 atraumatic > 22 atraumatic > 25 atraumatic > 26 cutting > 29 cutting > 27 atraumatic = 27 cutting for procedural success. Meta-regression by type of surgical population (obstetric/non-obstetric) and participant position (sitting/lateral) did not alter these rank orders. This analysis provides an unbiased comparison of individual needles that does not support the use of simple rules when selecting the optimal needle. The 26-G atraumatic needle is most likely to enable successful insertion while avoiding post-dural puncture headache but, where this is not available, our probability rankings can help clinicians select the best of available options.

Incidence and risk factors of postdural puncture headache: prospective cohort study design

Background

Postdural puncture headache is one of the complications following spinal anesthesia and accidental dural puncture. Several modifiable risk factors contribute to the development of headache after lumbar puncture, which includes needle size, needle design, direction of the bevel, and number of lumbar puncture attempts. This study aimed to assess the incidence and risk of postdural puncture headache.

Methods

This prospective cohort study design was conducted using a consecutive sampling method. Regular supervision and follow-up were performed. Data were entered into Epi info version 7 software and transported to SPSS version 20 for analysis. The odds ratio and 95% confidence interval were computed. The findings of the study were reported using tables, figures, and narrations. Variables that were found to be candidates (p value < 0.25) on binary logistic regression entered into a multiple logistic regression analysis to identify independent predictors of postdural puncture headache.

Results

One hundred fifty eligible study participants were included in our study, of which 28.7% had developed postdural puncture headache. This study found that needle size, number of cerebrospinal fluid drops, and multiple attempts were significant independent predictors of postdural puncture headache (p < 0.05). In addition, twenty-five needles were identified as the strongest preoperative independent predictor of postdural puncture headache (AOR = 4.150, CI = 1.433–12.021)

Conclusions

A recent study revealed that a small spinal needle was much better than a large cutting spinal needle regarding the frequency of postdural puncture headache. In addition, frequent attempts during lumbar puncture and increased cerebrospinal fluid leakage were associated with the events. In view of this, we recommend the use of a small spinal needle to avoid more leakage of cerebrospinal fluid and multiple attempts at spinal anesthesia and lumbar puncture.

Clinical guiding significance of abdominal organs projection on the lateral lumbar X-ray for spinal microendoscopy punctures

Aims: To measure the anatomical structure of lumbar spine by computed tomography (CT) scan, and explore the posterior edge of abdominal organs on the lateral lumbar X-ray in lateral puncture, in order to provide an anatomical basis for spinal microendoscopy to avoid abdominal organ injury. Methods: A total of 50 patients with abdominal enhanced CT scan in our hospital were included. The spine from L1 to S1 were divided into 16 axial levels (containing the superior level of vertebral body, middle part of vertebral body, and inferior level of vertebral body) to make out safety zone, critical puncture point and critical angle in accordance with the anatomical position of posterior renal fascia and parietal peritoneum on the lateral lumbar X-ray. Results: From L1 to S1, the projection of the lowest point of the posterior renal fascia and parietal peritoneum and the projection of the critical puncture point turns from the dorsal side of the posterior vertebral body to the ventral side. And the two projection points are in the same position on the middle level of L4 vertebral body, which is on the posterior margin of L4 vertebral body. The critical puncture angle is also gradually reduced, and is approximate 0° at the middle level of L4. There is no statistically significant difference between left and right side of the body. Conclusion: The safety zone, critical puncture point and critical angle of L1-S1 were determined in accordance with the projection of the lowest point of the posterior renal fascia and parietal peritoneum, which provided an anatomical guidance for avoiding the injury of posterior renal fascia or abdominal organs during operation.

Postpartum Headache due to Cerebellar Infarct Initially Misdiagnosed as Postdural Puncture Headache: A Case Report

We present the case of a 39-year-old woman with postpartum cerebellar infarction (CI) following spinal anesthesia for cesarean delivery. The patient experienced mild headache after postoperative day 1 and returned on postoperative day 6 with a severe headache. For the subsequent 3 days, she underwent conservative treatment for presumed postdural puncture headache (PDPH) before neurologic decline and diagnosis of CI on postoperative day 9. She subsequently underwent craniotomy and debridement of necrotic tissues. Prolonged or position-independent postpartum headache should prompt broadening of the differential diagnosis beyond PDPH to include other more rare but serious causes of postpartum headache.

Prospective randomized comparison of cerebrospinal fluid aspiration and conventional popping methods using 27-gauge spinal needles in patients undergoing spinal anaesthesia

Background

Performing spinal anaesthesia using the conventional popping method with a 27-gauge (27G) spinal needle is technically difficult. In this study, we compared the aspiration and conventional popping method for spinal anaesthesia using 27G Quincke-type needles.

Methods

This prospective, randomized study enrolled 90 patients, aged 19 to 65 years, with American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I-III, who were undergoing spinal anaesthesia. Patients were randomly assigned to one of two groups using a computer-generated random number table: patients receiving spinal anaesthesia using the aspiration method, in which the needle is advanced with continuous aspiration, or the conventional popping method. The primary outcome measure was the success rate of the first attempt to perform dural puncture. Number of attempts and passages, withdrawal cases, successful attempt time, total procedure time, and actual depth of dural puncture were recorded.

Results

Eighty-eight patients were included in the study. In the aspiration group, the success rate of first attempt for dural puncture was 93.3%, compared with 72.1% in the popping group (P = 0.019). Success involving needle withdrawal was recorded in 4 (8.9%) patients in the aspiration group and 13 (30.2%) in the popping group (P = 0.024). In the popping group, the number of attempts was significantly higher (P = 0.044), and total procedure time was significantly longer (P = 0.023). Actual depths of dural puncture were deeper in the popping group than in the aspiration group (P = 0.019).

Conclusions

The aspiration method using a 27G Quincke-type needle offers clinical benefits for dural puncture compared with the conventional popping method for spinal anaesthesia.

Trial registration

Clinical research information service number: KCT0002815, registered 21/Apr/2018. Retrospectively registered.

Atraumatic versus conventional lumbar puncture needles: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Atraumatic needles have been proposed to lower complication rates after lumbar puncture. However, several surveys indicate that clinical adoption of these needles remains poor. We did a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare patient outcomes after lumbar puncture with atraumatic needles and conventional needles.

METHODS

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we independently searched 13 databases with no language restrictions from inception to Aug 15, 2017, for randomised controlled trials comparing the use of atraumatic needles and conventional needles for any lumbar puncture indication. Randomised trials comparing atraumatic and conventional needles in which no dural puncture was done (epidural injections) or without a conventional needle control group were excluded. We screened studies and extracted data from published reports independently. The primary outcome of postdural-puncture headache incidence and additional safety and efficacy outcomes were assessed by random-effects and fixed-effects meta-analysis. This study is registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews, number CRD42016047546.

FINDINGS

We identified 20 241 reports; after exclusions, 110 trials done between 1989 and 2017 from 29 countries, including a total of 31 412 participants, were eligible for analysis. The incidence of postdural-puncture headache was significantly reduced from 11·0% (95% CI 9·1-13·3) in the conventional needle group to 4·2% (3·3-5·2) in the atraumatic group (relative risk 0·40, 95% CI 0·34-0·47, p<0·0001; I²=45·4%). Atraumatic needles were also associated with significant reductions in the need for intravenous fluid or controlled analgesia (0·44, 95% CI 0·29-0·64; p<0·0001), need for epidural blood patch (0·50, 0·33-0·75; p=0·001), any headache (0·50, 0·43-0·57; p<0·0001), mild headache (0·52, 0·38-0·70; p<0·0001), severe headache (0·41, 0·28-0·59; p<0·0001), nerve root irritation (0·71, 0·54-0·92; p=0·011), and hearing disturbance (0·25, 0·11-0·60; p=0·002). Success of lumbar puncture on first attempt, failure rate, mean number of attempts, and the incidence of traumatic tap and backache did not differ significantly between the two needle groups. Prespecified subgroup analyses of postdural-puncture headache revealed no interactions between needle type and patient age, sex, use of prophylactic intravenous fluid, needle gauge, patient position, indication for lumbar puncture, bed rest after puncture, or clinician specialty. These results were rated high-quality evidence as examined using the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation.

INTERPRETATION

Among patients who had lumbar puncture, atraumatic needles were associated with a decrease in the incidence of postdural-puncture headache and in the need for patients to return to hospital for additional therapy, and had similar efficacy to conventional needles. These findings offer clinicians and stakeholders a comprehensive assessment and high-quality evidence for the safety and efficacy of atraumatic needles as a superior option for patients who require lumbar puncture.

FUNDING

None.

Comparison of cutting and pencil-point spinal needle in spinal anesthesia regarding postdural puncture headache: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Postdural puncture headache (PDPH), mainly resulting from the loss of cerebral spinal fluid (CSF), is a well-known iatrogenic complication of spinal anesthesia and diagnostic lumbar puncture. Spinal needles have been modified to minimize complications. Modifiable risk factors of PDPH mainly included needle size and needle shape. However, whether the incidence of PDPH is significantly different between cutting-point and pencil-point needles was controversial. Then we did a meta-analysis to assess the incidence of PDPH of cutting spinal needle and pencil-point spinal needle.

METHODS

We included all randomly designed trials, assessing the clinical outcomes in patients given elective spinal anesthesia or diagnostic lumbar puncture with either cutting or pencil-point spinal needle as eligible studies. All selected studies and the risk of bias of them were assessed by 2 investigators. Clinical outcomes including success rates, frequency of PDPH, reported severe PDPH, and the use of epidural blood patch (EBP) were recorded as primary results. Results were evaluated using risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) for dichotomous variables. Rev Man software (version 5.3) was used to analyze all appropriate data.

RESULTS

Twenty-five randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included in our study. The analysis result revealed that pencil-point spinal needle would result in lower rate of PDPH (RR 2.50; 95% CI [1.96, 3.19]; P < 0.00001) and severe PDPH (RR 3.27; 95% CI [2.15, 4.96]; P < 0.00001). Furthermore, EBP was less used in pencil-point spine needle group (RR 3.69; 95% CI [1.96, 6.95]; P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Current evidences suggest that pencil-point spinal needle was significantly superior compared with cutting spinal needle regarding the frequency of PDPH, PDPH severity, and the use of EBP. In view of this, we recommend the use of pencil-point spinal needle in spinal anesthesia and lumbar puncture.