Positioning for lumbar puncture in newborn infants.
Journal
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews
ISSN: 1469-493X
Titre abrégé: Cochrane Database Syst Rev
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100909747
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
23 10 2023
23 10 2023
Historique:
pmc-release:
23
10
2024
medline:
26
10
2023
pubmed:
23
10
2023
entrez:
23
10
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Lumbar puncture is a common invasive procedure performed in newborns for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes. Approximately one in two lumbar punctures fail, resulting in both short- and long-term negative consequences for the clinical management of patients. The most common positions used to perform lumbar puncture are the lateral decubitus and sitting position, and each can impact the success rate and safety of the procedure. However, it is uncertain which position best improves patient outcomes. To assess the benefits and harms of the lateral decubitus, sitting, and prone positions for lumbar puncture in newborn infants. We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 24 January 2023. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs involving newborn infants of postmenstrual age up to 46 weeks and 0 days, undergoing lumbar puncture for any indication, comparing different positions (i.e. lateral decubitus, sitting, and prone position) during the procedure. We used standard Cochrane methods. We used the fixed-effect model with risk ratio (RR) and risk difference (RD) for dichotomous data and mean difference (MD) and standardized mean difference (SMD) for continuous data, with their 95% confidence intervals (CI). Our primary outcomes were successful lumbar puncture procedure at the first attempt; total number of lumbar puncture attempts; and episodes of bradycardia. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome. We included five studies with 1476 participants. Compared to sitting position: lateral decubitus position may result in little to no difference in successful lumbar puncture procedure at the first attempt (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.02; RD -0.04, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.01; I When compared to sitting position, lateral decubitus position may result in little to no difference in successful lumbar puncture procedure at first attempt. None of the included studies reported the total number of lumbar puncture attempts. Furthermore, infants in a lateral decubitus position likely experience more episodes of bradycardia and oxygen desaturation, and there may be little to no difference in episodes of apnea. The evidence is very uncertain regarding time to perform lumbar puncture. Pain intensity during and after the procedure was reported using a pain scale that was not included in our prespecified tools for pain assessment due to its high risk of bias. Most study participants were term newborns, thereby limiting the applicability of these results to preterm babies. When compared to prone position, lateral decubitus position may reduce successful lumbar puncture procedure at first attempt. Only one study reported on this comparison and did not evaluate adverse effects. Further research exploring harms and benefits and the effect on patients' pain experience of different positions during lumbar puncture using validated pain scoring tool may increase the level of confidence in our conclusions.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Lumbar puncture is a common invasive procedure performed in newborns for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes. Approximately one in two lumbar punctures fail, resulting in both short- and long-term negative consequences for the clinical management of patients. The most common positions used to perform lumbar puncture are the lateral decubitus and sitting position, and each can impact the success rate and safety of the procedure. However, it is uncertain which position best improves patient outcomes.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms of the lateral decubitus, sitting, and prone positions for lumbar puncture in newborn infants.
SEARCH METHODS
We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 24 January 2023.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs involving newborn infants of postmenstrual age up to 46 weeks and 0 days, undergoing lumbar puncture for any indication, comparing different positions (i.e. lateral decubitus, sitting, and prone position) during the procedure.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methods. We used the fixed-effect model with risk ratio (RR) and risk difference (RD) for dichotomous data and mean difference (MD) and standardized mean difference (SMD) for continuous data, with their 95% confidence intervals (CI). Our primary outcomes were successful lumbar puncture procedure at the first attempt; total number of lumbar puncture attempts; and episodes of bradycardia. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome.
MAIN RESULTS
We included five studies with 1476 participants. Compared to sitting position: lateral decubitus position may result in little to no difference in successful lumbar puncture procedure at the first attempt (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.02; RD -0.04, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.01; I
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
When compared to sitting position, lateral decubitus position may result in little to no difference in successful lumbar puncture procedure at first attempt. None of the included studies reported the total number of lumbar puncture attempts. Furthermore, infants in a lateral decubitus position likely experience more episodes of bradycardia and oxygen desaturation, and there may be little to no difference in episodes of apnea. The evidence is very uncertain regarding time to perform lumbar puncture. Pain intensity during and after the procedure was reported using a pain scale that was not included in our prespecified tools for pain assessment due to its high risk of bias. Most study participants were term newborns, thereby limiting the applicability of these results to preterm babies. When compared to prone position, lateral decubitus position may reduce successful lumbar puncture procedure at first attempt. Only one study reported on this comparison and did not evaluate adverse effects. Further research exploring harms and benefits and the effect on patients' pain experience of different positions during lumbar puncture using validated pain scoring tool may increase the level of confidence in our conclusions.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37870133
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD015592.pub2
pmc: PMC10591282
doi:
Substances chimiques
Oxygen
S88TT14065
Types de publication
Systematic Review
Journal Article
Review
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
CD015592Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2023 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Références
Pediatr Nurs. 1997 May-Jun;23(3):293-7
pubmed: 9220806
Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2008 Dec;27(12):1047-51
pubmed: 18989240
Acta Paediatr. 2005 Oct;94(10):1432-6
pubmed: 16299876
Lancet Child Adolesc Health. 2023 Feb;7(2):91-100
pubmed: 36460015
Clin J Pain. 2008 Jan;24(1):83-8
pubmed: 18180641
Clin J Pain. 2004 Mar-Apr;20(2):76-82
pubmed: 14770046
Pediatrics. 1993 Feb;91(2):379-82
pubmed: 8424014
J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. 2013 Jan-Feb;42(1):105-20
pubmed: 23316895
Am J Dis Child. 1983 Nov;137(11):1077-9
pubmed: 6637909
J Anat. 1970 May;106(Pt 3):489-97
pubmed: 5423940
Arch Pediatr. 1997 Jul;4(7):623-8
pubmed: 9295899
Prev Sci. 2013 Apr;14(2):134-43
pubmed: 23479191
J Perinatol. 2008 Jan;28(1):55-60
pubmed: 18165830
Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2013 Mar;98(2):F133-5
pubmed: 22684159
PLoS Med. 2009 Jul 21;6(7):e1000100
pubmed: 19621070
Paediatr Anaesth. 2008 Dec;18(12):1178-82
pubmed: 19076571
BMC Pediatr. 2022 Jan 3;22(1):2
pubmed: 34980050
Front Pediatr. 2021 Jun 14;9:692652
pubmed: 34211946
Pediatrics. 2004 May;113(5):1403-5
pubmed: 15121964
Pediatrics. 2006 Mar;117(3):876-81
pubmed: 16510670
Ann Emerg Med. 2017 May;69(5):610-619.e1
pubmed: 27856020
Pediatr Emerg Care. 2016 Aug;32(8):504-7
pubmed: 26417957
JAMA. 1977 Jan 10;237(2):148-50
pubmed: 576154
Clin Anat. 2014 Apr;27(3):370-5
pubmed: 23408712
J Clin Epidemiol. 2016 Jul;75:40-6
pubmed: 27005575
Pediatr Emerg Care. 2013 May;29(5):588-91
pubmed: 23603648
Clin J Pain. 2003 Nov-Dec;19(6):353-63
pubmed: 14600535
Pediatr Neonatol. 2018 Aug;59(4):352-359
pubmed: 29248383
Pediatrics. 1983 Jan;71(1):31-5
pubmed: 6401357
JAMA Pediatr. 2019 Dec 1;173(12):1186-1197
pubmed: 31609437
Early Hum Dev. 2014 Apr;90(4):189-93
pubmed: 24491511
BMJ. 1997 Sep 13;315(7109):629-34
pubmed: 9310563
J Pediatr. 2014 Oct;165(4):862-5.e1
pubmed: 25063721
J Pediatr Nurs. 2020 Sep - Oct;54:e1-e8
pubmed: 32680615
Neonatal Netw. 1993 Sep;12(6):59-66
pubmed: 8413140
Eur J Pediatr. 2020 Jun;179(6):939-945
pubmed: 32002614
Front Pediatr. 2020 Feb 07;8:30
pubmed: 32117835
Anaesthesia. 2002 Dec;57(12):1164-7
pubmed: 12437706
Clin J Pain. 1996 Mar;12(1):13-22
pubmed: 8722730
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2023 Oct 23;10:CD015592
pubmed: 37870133
Emerg Radiol. 2004 Feb;10(4):179-81
pubmed: 15290485
BMC Pediatr. 2020 Apr 15;20(1):165
pubmed: 32295554
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2023 Sep 28;9:CD015594
pubmed: 37767875