An optimal epidural catheter placement site for post-cesarean section analgesia with double-space technique combined spinal-epidural anesthesia: a retrospective study.
Combined spinal–epidural anesthesia
Motor weakness
Numbness
Obstetric anesthesia
Patient-controlled epidural analgesia
Journal
JA clinical reports
ISSN: 2363-9024
Titre abrégé: JA Clin Rep
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 101682121
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
04 Jan 2021
04 Jan 2021
Historique:
received:
10
11
2020
accepted:
08
12
2020
revised:
07
12
2020
entrez:
5
1
2021
pubmed:
6
1
2021
medline:
6
1
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Epidural anesthesia affects lower extremities, which often prevents early mobilization postoperatively. The incidence of numbness and motor weakness in the lower extremities with respect to epidural catheter placement site in cesarean section (CS) is uncertain. We aimed to investigate the effect of catheter placement site on postoperative lower extremities numbness and motor weakness in patients who received combined spinal-epidural anesthesia (CSEA) for CS including analgesic effects and optimal epidural placement site in CS. We retrospectively included 205 patients who underwent CS with CSEA at the University of Tsukuba Hospital between April 2018 and March 2020, and assessed numbness and motor weakness in the lower extremities. We also examined whether differences in the intervertebral space of epidural catheter placement and epidural effect on the lower extremities are related to analgesic effects. ANOVA and Mann-Whitney U test were used for statistical analysis. The incidence of numbness and motor weakness were 67 (33%) and 28 (14%), respectively. All patients with motor weakness had numbness. A more caudal placement was associated with increased incidence of affected lower extremities. There was no significant difference in the analgesic effect depending on the catheter placement site. When the lower extremities were affected, the number of additional analgesics increased (p < 0.001). Patient-controlled epidural analgesia was used for fewer days in patients with motor weakness (p = 0.046). In CS, epidural catheter placement at T10-11 or T11-12 interspace is expected to reduce effect on the lower extremities and improve quality of postoperative analgesia.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Epidural anesthesia affects lower extremities, which often prevents early mobilization postoperatively. The incidence of numbness and motor weakness in the lower extremities with respect to epidural catheter placement site in cesarean section (CS) is uncertain. We aimed to investigate the effect of catheter placement site on postoperative lower extremities numbness and motor weakness in patients who received combined spinal-epidural anesthesia (CSEA) for CS including analgesic effects and optimal epidural placement site in CS.
METHODS
METHODS
We retrospectively included 205 patients who underwent CS with CSEA at the University of Tsukuba Hospital between April 2018 and March 2020, and assessed numbness and motor weakness in the lower extremities. We also examined whether differences in the intervertebral space of epidural catheter placement and epidural effect on the lower extremities are related to analgesic effects. ANOVA and Mann-Whitney U test were used for statistical analysis.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The incidence of numbness and motor weakness were 67 (33%) and 28 (14%), respectively. All patients with motor weakness had numbness. A more caudal placement was associated with increased incidence of affected lower extremities. There was no significant difference in the analgesic effect depending on the catheter placement site. When the lower extremities were affected, the number of additional analgesics increased (p < 0.001). Patient-controlled epidural analgesia was used for fewer days in patients with motor weakness (p = 0.046).
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
In CS, epidural catheter placement at T10-11 or T11-12 interspace is expected to reduce effect on the lower extremities and improve quality of postoperative analgesia.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33398592
doi: 10.1186/s40981-020-00405-9
pii: 10.1186/s40981-020-00405-9
pmc: PMC7782655
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
3Références
Anesth Analg. 1993 Feb;76(2):429-31
pubmed: 8380958
Br J Anaesth. 1982 Dec;54(12):1259-62
pubmed: 7171412
Biomed Res Int. 2014;2014:965152
pubmed: 24982917
JA Clin Rep. 2015;1(1):3
pubmed: 29497635
Anesth Analg. 2008 Aug;107(2):708-21
pubmed: 18633056
BMC Anesthesiol. 2020 Jan 30;20(1):29
pubmed: 32000674
Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2009 Jan;26(1):52-9
pubmed: 19122553
Br J Anaesth. 2000 Sep;85(3):468-70
pubmed: 11103193
Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2020 Jun;33(3):284-290
pubmed: 32371639
Br J Anaesth. 2009 Feb;102(2):179-90
pubmed: 19139027
Anesth Analg. 2004 Jun;98(6):1783-4, table of contents
pubmed: 15155347
Masui. 2007 Apr;56(4):469-80
pubmed: 17441462
Best Pract Res Clin Anaesthesiol. 2017 Mar;31(1):69-79
pubmed: 28625307
Korean J Anesthesiol. 2014 Sep;67(3):181-5
pubmed: 25302094