alexa A retrospective effectiveness study of loss of resistance to air or saline for identification of the epidural space.
Anesthesiology

Anesthesiology

Journal of Anesthesia & Clinical Research

Author(s): Segal S, Arendt KW

Abstract Share this page

Abstract BACKGROUND: Randomized trials comparing air to saline for loss of resistance (LOR) for identification of the epidural space have suggested the superiority of saline. We hypothesized that, in actual clinical practice, anesthesiologists using their preferred technique would produce similar analgesic outcomes with either air or saline. METHODS: The labor analgesia records for 929 parturients requesting neuraxial analgesia were reviewed with respect to technique (epidural or combined spinal-epidural; air or saline for LOR), analgesic outcomes (initial comfort, asymmetry of the block, need for physician top-up during patient-controlled epidural analgesia, and catheter replacement), and complications (paresthesia, IV or intrathecal catheter placement, and unintentional dural puncture). RESULTS: Of 929 labor analgesics analyzed, 52.6\% were performed with LOR to air and 47.4\% to saline. Among anesthesiologists who performed at least 10 blocks, 82\% used 1 medium at least 70\% of the time. There were no differences between the air and saline groups in patient characteristics, analgesic technique, or block success. Among operators with a preference for 1 medium, use of the preferred technique was associated with fewer attempts (1.3 +/- 0.7 vs 1.6 +/- 0.8, P = 0.001), fewer paresthesias (8.7\% vs 18.5\%, odds ratio = 0.42, P = 0.007), and fewer unintentional dural punctures (1.0\% vs 4.4\%, odds ratio = 0.23, P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: When used at the anesthesiologist's discretion, there is no significant difference in block success between air and saline for localization of the epidural space by LOR. This article was published in Anesth Analg and referenced in Journal of Anesthesia & Clinical Research

Relevant Expert PPTs

Relevant Speaker PPTs

Recommended Conferences

Peer Reviewed Journals
 
Make the best use of Scientific Research and information from our 700 + peer reviewed, Open Access Journals
International Conferences 2017-18
 
Meet Inspiring Speakers and Experts at our 3000+ Global Annual Meetings

Contact Us

Agri & Aquaculture Journals

Dr. Krish

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9040

Biochemistry Journals

Datta A

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9037

Business & Management Journals

Ronald

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9042

Chemistry Journals

Gabriel Shaw

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9040

Clinical Journals

Datta A

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9037

Engineering Journals

James Franklin

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9042

Food & Nutrition Journals

Katie Wilson

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9042

General Science

Andrea Jason

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9043

Genetics & Molecular Biology Journals

Anna Melissa

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9006

Immunology & Microbiology Journals

David Gorantl

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9014

Materials Science Journals

Rachle Green

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9039

Nursing & Health Care Journals

Stephanie Skinner

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9039

Medical Journals

Nimmi Anna

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9038

Neuroscience & Psychology Journals

Nathan T

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9041

Pharmaceutical Sciences Journals

Ann Jose

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9007

Social & Political Science Journals

Steve Harry

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9042

 
© 2008- 2017 OMICS International - Open Access Publisher. Best viewed in Mozilla Firefox | Google Chrome | Above IE 7.0 version
adwords