alexa Quality of analgesia when air versus saline is used for identification of the epidural space in the parturient.
Anesthesiology

Anesthesiology

Journal of Anesthesia & Clinical Research

Author(s): Beilin Y, Arnold I, Telfeyan C, Bernstein HH, Hossain S

Abstract Share this page

Abstract BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Identification of the epidural space is often performed using the loss-of-resistance technique (LOR), commonly with air or saline. The effect of air or saline on the quality of labor epidural analgesia has not been adequately studied. METHODS: Women who requested labor epidural analgesia were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 groups depending on the syringe contents used for the LOR technique and injected into the epidural space. In the air group (n = 80) the anesthesiologist used 2 mL of air, and in the saline group (n = 80) the anesthesiologist used 2 mL of 0.9\% saline. After LOR was obtained, a multiorifice epidural catheter was threaded 5 cm into the epidural space and 13 mL of bupivacaine 0.25\% was administered in divided doses. The success of the epidural block was determined by asking the patient if she required additional medication 15 minutes later. The occurrence of paresthesias and intravascular or subarachnoid catheters was noted. RESULTS: In the air group, 36\% of patients requested additional pain medication, and in the saline group 19\% requested additional medication (P =.022). We were not able to find a statistically significant difference between groups in the incidence of paresthesias (42\% air v 51\% saline), intravascular catheters (5\% air v 8\% saline), or subarachnoid catheters (0 in both groups). CONCLUSIONS: Using 0.9\% saline for the LOR technique is associated with better analgesia as compared with air for labor analgesia, and this advantage should be considered when selecting the syringe contents for the LOR technique. This article was published in Reg Anesth Pain Med 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, Food, Aqua and Veterinary Science Journals

Dr. Krish

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9040

Clinical and Biochemistry Journals

Datta A

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9037

Business & Management Journals

Ronald

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9042

Chemical Engineering and Chemistry Journals

Gabriel Shaw

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9040

Earth & Environmental Sciences

Katie Wilson

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9042

Engineering Journals

James Franklin

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9042

General Science and Health care Journals

Andrea Jason

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9043

Genetics and Molecular Biology Journals

Anna Melissa

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9006

Immunology & Microbiology Journals

David Gorantl

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9014

Informatics Journals

Stephanie Skinner

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9039

Material Sciences Journals

Rachle Green

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9039

Mathematics and Physics Journals

Jim Willison

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9042

Medical Journals

Nimmi Anna

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9038

Neuroscience & Psychology Journals

Nathan T

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9041

Pharmaceutical Sciences Journals

John Behannon

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9007

Social & Political Science Journals

Steve Harry

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9042

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