Hearing loss after spinal anaesthesia: comparison of 22 and 25 G Quincke needles in a non-elderly population

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.

The effects of spinal anesthesia on auditory function in pediatric patients

OBJECTIVES

Persistent or transient hearing loss (HL) is a less-recognized complication of spinal anesthesia (SA) in the pediatric population, although it has been previously reported in adults. The primary aim of this study was to investigate the effects of SA on auditory function in the pediatric population.

METHODS

After gaining institutional approval and parental consent, 30 American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I-II children between 4 and 15 years undergoing lower extremity orthopedic surgery were enrolled in this prospective study. Spinal blocks were performed in the midline with a 25G Quincke needle using 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine. Transient evoked otoacoustic emission (TEOAE) and distortion product otoacoustic emission (DPOAE) tests were administered before surgery and one-day postoperative. Children with detected HL were retested on postoperative day seven. Preoperative and postoperative results were compared. A Wilcoxin Signed-Ranks test (with Bonferroni correction) was used for statistical analyses.

RESULTS

There was no statistically significant HL in the postoperative period compared to the preoperative period. In 29 of 30 patients, no difference was detected at any frequency tested. In one patient, TEOAE and DPOAE tests were found to be decreased on postoperative day one. In this patient, control tests were found to be improved on postoperative day seven.

CONCLUSIONS

Administration of SA may results in a low probability of transient hearing loss with no clinical significance in children 4-15 years of age.