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

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.

Atraumatic spinal needle indicates correct CSF opening pressure

The accurate assessment of cerebrospinal fluid opening pressure during spinal puncture provides important medical information in diagnosis, prognosis and therapy of several neurological conditions. However, purpose-specific spinal needle choice is debated. While atraumatic needles are associated with lower incidence of post-puncture headache and re-hospitalisation, some clinicians believe that they lack in accuracy of CSF opening pressure assessment. Our primary objective was to investigate different needle types on correctly assessing CSF opening pressure. We compared typical clinically utilised traumatic (0.9 mm outer diameter) and atraumatic (0.7 mm; 0.45 mm) spinal needles with regards to the assessment of the opening pressure in an experimental spinal puncture model testing experimental and cerebrospinal fluids in predefined pressures. Our goal was to measure the time until indicated pressure levels were correctly shown. Atraumatic needles of at least 0.7 mm diameter had a similar accuracy as traumatic needles without significant differences in time-to-equilibrium. These results were independent of protein and glucose concentration and the presence of haemoglobin. This study demonstrates that atraumatic needles can be used to accurately measure CSF opening pressure. This knowledge might guide clinicians in their choice of needle and help to reduce post-puncture headaches and re-hospitalisation.

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.

Spinal anesthesia

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The aim of this article is to review current practice of spinal anesthesia regarding technique and medication use; review recent applications of spinal anesthesia to subspecialty care in outpatient, cardiac, and obstetrical anesthesia; and update risk assessment associated with spinal anesthesia.

RECENT FINDINGS

Epidural volume extension enhances the spread of local anesthetics using a combined spinal-epidural technique. Chloroprocaine has become the agent of choice at some institutions. The growth in both the number and complexity of ambulatory surgery procedures has redefined the role of spinal anesthesia for outpatients. The 27-gauge Whitacre spinal needle is associated with a lower incidence of post-dural puncture headaches. Retrospective reviews can predict the incidence of rare complications such as neurologic injury and cardiac arrest.

SUMMARY

Innovations in technology, equipment, and needle design improved safety and decreased complication rates from spinal anesthesia. The increased popularity of ambulatory surgical procedures has resulted in more frequent use of spinal anesthesia. Intrathecal narcotic analgesia is used increasingly in fast-tracking cardiac surgical protocols. Modern anesthetic and analgesic techniques include resurgence of older agents (2-chloroprocaine) as well as new agents (levobupivacaine and ropivacaine) that are used in conjunction with adjuvant intrathecal medications (opioids, vasopressors, and alpha-2 adrenergic agonists). Surgical thromboprophylaxis and the increased use of anticoagulants in patients with cardiovascular disease have challenged anesthesiologists to update clinical guidelines to minimize the risk of hemorrhagic complications such as epidural hematoma. The risk/benefit ratio of spinal anesthesia should be individualized. The continued popularity of spinal anesthesia is due to the safety, effectiveness and efficiency of this technique.