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

Post-spinal Anesthesia Low Back Pain in Obese Female Patients: Comparison of the Median Versus Paramedian Approach

BACKGROUND

A side effect of spinal anesthesia is post-dural puncture backache (PDPB), which is characterized by ongoing discomfort at the location of the spinal puncture without any radicular pain. This study aims to compare the incidence and severity of post-dural puncture back pain following spinal anesthesia by median versus paramedian technique in obese female patients.

METHODS

 A prospective randomized comparative study on 120 female patients, aged 20-50 years with a BMI of 30-40 kg/m2 and American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status II, scheduled for elective surgery under spinal anesthesia, was included in the study. Patients were randomly divided into two groups, with 60 patients in each group. Group P uses the paramedian approach for spinal anesthesia, and group M uses the midline approach for spinal anesthesia.

RESULTS

Low back pain incidence was lower in group P than in group M at seven days, but at one month and after, its incidence remained the same in both groups. No difference in the severity of pain was observed.

CONCLUSIONS

The occurrence of back pain in the first seven days of surgery was significantly more frequent with the median approach. The pain severity decreased as the time passed from day seven to three months of follow-up. There is no difference in the severity of pain with either approach at different intervals.

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.

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 of newly developed postoperative low back pain with median versus paramedian approach for spinal anesthesia

Background

The effects of anesthetic techniques on postdural puncture backache (PDPB) have not been specifically evaluated. The purpose of this study was to compare the incidence and severity of PDPB between median and paramedian techniques.

Methods

Patients were randomized to receive spinal anesthesia by either a median (Group M, n = 50) or paramedian (Group P, n = 50) approach.We recorded each patient’s personal number of puncture attempts, surgical position, and operation duration. We investigated the incidence and intensity of back pain 1 day, 1 week, and 1, 2, and 3 months postoperatively.

Results

The overall incidence of PDPB was higher in the Group M (18/50, 36%) than in the Group P (8/50, 16%) (P = 0.023). Twenty-four hours after surgery, 8 patients in Group M and 6 patients in Group P complained of back pain. Seven days after the surgery, 16 patients in the Group M and 5 patients in the Group P complained of pain (P = 0.007). After 1 month, 5 patients in the Group M and 1 patient in the Group P complained of pain. Only one patient in each group complained of pain after 3 months. No significant differences were noted in NRSs between the groups during study period.

Conclusions

The results of this study suggest that spinal anesthesia using the paramedian approach reduces the incidence of PDPB during the early postoperative period.

The Impact of Spinal Needle Selection on Postdural Puncture Headache: A Meta-Analysis and Metaregression of Randomized Studies

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Potentially broadened indications for spinal anesthesia require increased understanding of the risk factors and prevention measures associated with postdural puncture headache (PDPH). This review is designed to examine the association between spinal needle characteristics and incidence of PDPH.

METHODS

Meta-analysis and metaregression was performed on randomized controlled trials to determine the effect of needle design and gauge on the incidence of PDPH after controlling for patient confounders such as age, sex, and year of publication.

RESULTS

Fifty-seven randomized controlled trials (n = 16416) were included in our analysis, of which 32 compared pencil-point design with cutting-needle design and 25 compared individual gauges of similar design. Pencil-point design was associated with a statistically significant reduction in incidence of PDPH (risk ratio, 0.41; 95% confidence interval, 0.31-0.54; P < 0.001; I = 29%) compared with cutting needles among studies that assessed both design types. Subgroup analysis among obstetric and nonobstetric procedures yielded similar results. After adjustment for significant covariates, metaregression analysis among all 57 included trials revealed a significant correlation between needle gauge and rate of PDPH among cutting needles (slope = -2.65, P < 0.001), but not pencil-point needles (slope = -0.01, P = 0.819).

CONCLUSIONS

Pencil-point needles are associated with significantly lower incidence of PDPH compared with the cutting-needle design. Whereas a significant relationship was noted between needle gauge and PDPH for cutting-needle design, a similar association was not shown for pencil-point needles. Providers may consider selection of larger-caliber pencil-point needle to maximize technical proficiency without expensing increased rates of PDPH.

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.

Acute Back Pain Following Surgery under Spinal Anesthesia

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study was to determine the factors having a role in the occurrence of acute back pain following spinal anesthesia.

METHODS

Six hundred and forty-nine patients who underwent surgery under spinal anesthesia were enrolled in this prospective observational study. Patients' age, sex, BMI, ASA physical status, educational status, history of back pain, spinal needle radius, spinal interspace level of intervention, method of approach for spinal anesthesia, position during spinal anesthesia, angle of puncture with respect to the spinal ligaments, magnitude of pain during intervention, number of lumbar punctures, number of bony contacts, amount of bupivacaine administered intrathecally, type of surgical procedure, surgical position, duration of the surgery, and duration of anesthesia parameters were recorded. Patients were inquired for existence and magnitude of back pain on the 1st day and the 4th week postoperatively. Multivariate analysis is performed via logistic regression model to parameters that are found to be significant in univariate analysis.

RESULTS

Assessment of the data from the postoperative 1st day showed 29.3% of the patients suffered back pain. Postspinal acute back pain was related to the number of bony contacts (P = 0.016), history of back pain (P = 0.0001), spinal needle radius (P = 0.022), and duration of the surgery (P = 0.037).

CONCLUSION

Contrary to the common belief, it is demonstrated in this study that number of lumbar punctures, method of approach and position of the spinal anesthesia, age, sex, surgical position, and the type of the surgery did not correlate with occurrence of acute back pain following spinal anesthesia.

Severe back pain following surgery was successfully treated by a lumbar medial branch block : A case report

Lower back pain commonly develops following spinal anesthesia. This pain is likely caused by strain on the ligaments associated with paraspinous muscle relaxation and positioning during the operation. We describe a case involving a healthy 61-year-old woman with a varicose vein that was scheduled for phlebotomy under spinal anesthesia. Two days after spinal anesthesia, the patient experienced severe lower back pain that was markedly aggravated by twisting and extension of the spine, but subsided with rest. Immediately after a lumbar medial branch block was performed at the area of tenderness the pain subsided. Thease results suggest that immediate treatment of acute lower back pain is important for preventing progression to chronic low back pain.

Safety and Acceptability of the Research Lumbar Puncture

Three hundred forty-two subjects underwent 428 research lumbar punctures for studies of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers. Subjects were 67 Alzheimer disease or mild cognitive impairment (AD/MCI) patients and 275 cognitively normal adults aged 21 to 88. Lumbar puncture was performed in the lateral decubitus or sitting position using the Sprotte 24 g atraumatic spinal needle. Up to 34 ml of cerebrospinal fluid were collected. Anxiety and pain experienced during lumbar puncture were rated on a visual analog scale. The frequency of any adverse event (11.7%), clinically significant adverse events (3.97%), and typical post-lumbar puncture headache (PLPHA) (0.93%) was low. Risk of post-lumbar puncture headache was unrelated to age, gender, position during lumbar puncture, ml of cerebrospinal fluid collected, or minutes of recumbent rest following lumbar puncture. The frequency of post-lumbar puncture headache was lower in AD/MCI (P = 0.03) than any other subject group. Anxiety and pain ratings were low. Younger subjects reported more anxiety than old (P = 0.001) and AD/MCI subjects (P = 0.008) and more pain than older normal subjects (P = 0.013). Pain ratings for women were higher than those for men (P = 0.006). Using the Sprotte 24 g spinal needle, research lumbar puncture can be performed with a very low rate of clinically significant adverse events and with good acceptability in cognitively impaired persons and cognitively normal adults of all ages.

Spinal Anesthesia Performance Conditions and Side Effects Are Comparable Between the Newly Designed Ballpen and the Sprotte Needle: Results of a Prospective Comparative Randomized Multicenter Study

In this study, we examined the characteristics of a newly designed spinal needle (Ballpen [B]) with a pencil-like tip formed by a stylet that is withdrawn after penetration of the dura. The main goal was to examine whether the use of the B needle could reduce performance time by improved puncture conditions in comparison with the Sprotte (S) needle. Seven-hundred patients at 4 hospitals received single-dose spinal anesthesia with a 25-gauge B or S needle and 0.5% bupivacaine. The performance time of spinal anesthesia was defined as the time between insertion of the introducer needle and the first identification of cerebrospinal fluid in the hub of the spinal needle. Failed spinals were assessed when patients required general anesthesia. On postoperative Day 2-4, all patients were visited and interviewed. Groups did not differ with respect to demographics, puncture site, and dose of bupivacaine. Performance time was 98 +/- 145 s in Group B and 103 +/- 159 s in Group S (P = 0.68). The failure rate in Groups B and S was 3.8% and 3.9%, respectively, and the incidence of postdural puncture headache was 1.8% and 0.9% (P = 0.50), respectively. We conclude that there was no difference in technical variables or outcome between the B and S needles.

IMPLICATIONS

This multicenter study examined characteristics of the newly designed Ballpen needle with the Sprotte needle in 700 patients undergoing lower abdominal or extremity surgery in single-dose spinal anesthesia. Technical variables and side effects were comparable between both noncutting spinal needles.

Persistent back pain after spinal anaesthesia in the non-obstetric setting: incidence and predisposing factors

We determined the incidence of persistent back pain (PBP) after non-obstetrical spinal anaesthesia (SPA) and investigated factors predisposing to such pain in a prospective 1 yr follow-up study in 245 patients undergoing elective general or trauma surgery (218 patients undergoing single SPA, 27 undergoing two to six SPAs). All patients received a first questionnaire 3 months after the last SPA, and those reporting PBP after 3 months were sent a second questionnaire I year after the operation. Variables were PBP before and within 5 days, at 3 months and I year after SPA, patient satisfaction with SPA, patient characteristics and technical data. Statistical analysis was by contingency tables with Fisher's exact test and an unpaired t-test with logistic regression (P < 0.001 after Bonferroni correction was taken as significant). The response rate in patients who had a single SPA was 56% (122/218). Twenty-three of these 122 patients (18.9%) complained of back pain before SPA compared with 12/122 (10.7%, P = 0.0015) within 5 days after SPA. After 3 months, 15/122 patients (12.3%) reported PBP with 14 complaining of PBP before SPA (P < 0.0001), corresponding to an incidence of new PBP of 1/122 (0.8%). Multiple logistic regression revealed that pre-existing back pain was the only variable associated with PBP after 3 months (P < 0.0001). Patient characteristics and technical factors were not associated with PBP. Nine of the 15 patients with PBP after 3 months returned the second questionnaire: four still reported PBP (three of these had suffered from PBP before SPA). Despite PBP after 3 months, 13/15 patients said they would opt for SPA again. The response rate and results in patients who had had multiple SPAs were similiar to those who had had a single SPA.

The incidence of transient neurologic symptoms (TNS) after spinal anaesthesia in patients undergoing surgery in the supine position. Hyperbaric lidocaine 5% versus hyperbaric bupivacaine 0.5%

BACKGROUND

The incidence of TNS after spinal anaesthesia is a problem. Especially the use of hyperbaric lidocaine in patients placed in the lithotomy position during surgery has been associated with a high incidence of TNS. The present study was performed to investigate whether TNS is present more frequently in patients undergoing surgery in the supine position with use of hyperbaric lidocaine compared with hyperbaric bupivacaine.

METHOD

Seventy patients were included and randomised to receive either hyperbaric lidocaine or hyperbaric bupivacaine. All patients were contacted on the first and third postoperative days by an anaesthesiologist blinded to the local anaesthetic used. The patients were asked about symptoms of TNS, pain not associated with the operation area, and asked to grade the complaints after a verbal analogue score from 0 to 10.

RESULTS

We found a total of ten patients who showed signs of TNS. There were nine patients in the lidocaine group (26%) who showed signs of TNS compared to only one patient in the bupivacaine group (3%) (P<0.01). The average score of TNS complaints was 3.5. A total of 13 patients (19%) complained of back pain. There were no significant differences with regard to which local anaesthetic was used. The average score of back pain was 3.3.

CONCLUSION

TNS is a significant problem in patients having spinal anaesthesia with hyperbaric lidocaine compared to hyperbaric bupivacaine, both in the supine position. For day-case surgery, TNS would start after dismissal from hospital. The use of hyperbaric lidocaine is therefore questionable, even though these problems are of an order that the majority of patients would still choose spinal anaesthesia for future operations.

Spinal anaesthesia--the current trend towards narrow gauge atraumatic (pencil point) needles. Case reports and review

Advances in manufacturing technology have led to the wider availability and affordability of narrow gauge atraumatic spinal needles. The use of these needles is the most effective method available for anaesthetists to reduce the incidence of post dural puncture headache. Their use in all circumstances however, may not be appropriate in light of the problems which may be associated. These problems are illustrated here by four case reports and a review of the literature.

Grading of severity of postdural puncture headache after 27-gauge Quincke and Whitacre needles

BACKGROUND

Small-gauge needles are reported to have a low incidence of complications. Pencil-point needles are associated with a lower frequency of postdural puncture headache (PDPH), but a higher failure rate than Quincke needles.

METHODS

The incidence of PDPH was investigated in 200 patients under the age of 45, undergoing day-care surgery, after spinal anaesthesia with either 27-gauge Quincke or Whitacre needle. The severity of headache was graded as I (mild), II (moderate) or III (severe) using a grading system based on the visual analogue scale (VAS) associated with a functional rating (FG).

RESULTS

The frequency of PDPH following the Whitacre needle was 0% and 5.6% after the Quincke needle (P = 0.05). Two PDPHs were assessed as grade III, and three as grade II. All PDPHs occurred when the Quincke needle bevel was withdrawn perpendicular to the dural fibres following parallel insertion. No PDPH occurred when the bevel was inserted and removed parallel to the dural fibres (P < 0.05). There was no statistical difference (P > 0.08) in the incidence of PDPH and postdural puncture-related headaches (PDPR-H) in patients with recurrent headaches or migraine compared to patients with no previous history of headaches.

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that the 27-gauge Whitacre needle is the 'needle of choice' in patients with normal body stature. The incidence of PDPH following Quincke needles may not only be affected by the direction of the bevel during insertion but also during removal. Statistically, there was no gender variation in PDPH in this study (P = 0.5). A previous history of recurrent headache or migraine does not predispose to PDPH.