Ultrasound-Assisted Versus Landmark-Guided Spinal Anesthesia in Patients With Abnormal Spinal Anatomy: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Spinal anesthesia using a surface landmark-guided technique can be challenging in patients with anatomical alterations of the lumbar spine; however, it is unclear whether using ultrasonography can decrease the technical difficulties in these populations. We assessed whether an ultrasound-assisted technique could reduce the number of needle passes required for block success compared with the landmark-guided technique in patients with abnormal spinal anatomy.

METHODS: Forty-four patients with abnormal spinal anatomy including documented lumbar scoliosis and previous spinal surgery were randomized to receive either surface landmark-guided or preprocedural ultrasound-assisted spinal anesthesia. All spinal procedures were performed by 1 of 3 experienced anesthesiologists. The primary outcome was the number of needle passes required for successful dural puncture. Secondary outcomes included the success rate on the first pass, total procedure time, periprocedural pain scores, and the incidences of radicular pain, paresthesia, and bloody tap during the neuraxial procedure. Intergroup difference in the primary outcome was assessed for significance using Mann-Whitney U test.

RESULTS: The median (interquartile range [IQR; range]) number of needle passes was significantly lower in the ultrasound group than in the landmark group (ultrasound 1.5 [1-3 {1-5}]; landmark 6 [2-9.3 {1-15}]; P < .001). First-pass success was achieved in 11 (50.0%) and 2 (9.1%) patients in the ultrasound and landmark groups, respectively (P = .007). The total procedure time, defined as the sum of the time for identifying landmarks and performing spinal anesthesia, did not differ significantly between the 2 groups (ultrasound 141 seconds [115-181 seconds {101-336 seconds}]; landmark 146 seconds [90-295 seconds {53-404 seconds}]; P = .888). The ultrasound group showed lower periprocedural pain scores compared with the landmark group (ultrasound 3.5 [1-5 {0-7}]; landmark 5.5 [3-8 {0-9}]; P = .012). The incidences of complications during the procedure showed no significant differences between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS: For anesthesiologists with experience in neuraxial ultrasonography, the use of ultrasound significantly reduces the technical difficulties of spinal anesthesia in patients with abnormal spinal anatomy compared with the landmark-guided technique. Our results can lead to practical suggestions that encourage the use of neuraxial ultrasonography for spinal anesthesia in such patients.

Original languageEnglish
JournalAnesthesia and Analgesia
DOIs
StateE-pub ahead of print - 26 Dec 2019

Fingerprint

Spinal Anesthesia
Anatomy
Randomized Controlled Trials
Needles
Ultrasonography
Pain
Paresthesia
Incidence
Scoliosis
Nonparametric Statistics
Punctures
Spine
Population

Cite this

@article{d9fac5a8409144c7b4cdb6bc0cea2f9c,
title = "Ultrasound-Assisted Versus Landmark-Guided Spinal Anesthesia in Patients With Abnormal Spinal Anatomy: A Randomized Controlled Trial",
abstract = "BACKGROUND: Spinal anesthesia using a surface landmark-guided technique can be challenging in patients with anatomical alterations of the lumbar spine; however, it is unclear whether using ultrasonography can decrease the technical difficulties in these populations. We assessed whether an ultrasound-assisted technique could reduce the number of needle passes required for block success compared with the landmark-guided technique in patients with abnormal spinal anatomy.METHODS: Forty-four patients with abnormal spinal anatomy including documented lumbar scoliosis and previous spinal surgery were randomized to receive either surface landmark-guided or preprocedural ultrasound-assisted spinal anesthesia. All spinal procedures were performed by 1 of 3 experienced anesthesiologists. The primary outcome was the number of needle passes required for successful dural puncture. Secondary outcomes included the success rate on the first pass, total procedure time, periprocedural pain scores, and the incidences of radicular pain, paresthesia, and bloody tap during the neuraxial procedure. Intergroup difference in the primary outcome was assessed for significance using Mann-Whitney U test.RESULTS: The median (interquartile range [IQR; range]) number of needle passes was significantly lower in the ultrasound group than in the landmark group (ultrasound 1.5 [1-3 {1-5}]; landmark 6 [2-9.3 {1-15}]; P < .001). First-pass success was achieved in 11 (50.0{\%}) and 2 (9.1{\%}) patients in the ultrasound and landmark groups, respectively (P = .007). The total procedure time, defined as the sum of the time for identifying landmarks and performing spinal anesthesia, did not differ significantly between the 2 groups (ultrasound 141 seconds [115-181 seconds {101-336 seconds}]; landmark 146 seconds [90-295 seconds {53-404 seconds}]; P = .888). The ultrasound group showed lower periprocedural pain scores compared with the landmark group (ultrasound 3.5 [1-5 {0-7}]; landmark 5.5 [3-8 {0-9}]; P = .012). The incidences of complications during the procedure showed no significant differences between the 2 groups.CONCLUSIONS: For anesthesiologists with experience in neuraxial ultrasonography, the use of ultrasound significantly reduces the technical difficulties of spinal anesthesia in patients with abnormal spinal anatomy compared with the landmark-guided technique. Our results can lead to practical suggestions that encourage the use of neuraxial ultrasonography for spinal anesthesia in such patients.",
author = "Sun-Kyung Park and Jinyoung Bae and Seokha Yoo and Kim, {Won Ho} and Young-Jin Lim and Jae-Hyon Bahk and Jin-Tae Kim",
year = "2019",
month = "12",
day = "26",
doi = "10.1213/ANE.0000000000004600",
language = "English",
journal = "Anesthesia and analgesia",
issn = "0003-2999",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins Ltd.",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Ultrasound-Assisted Versus Landmark-Guided Spinal Anesthesia in Patients With Abnormal Spinal Anatomy

T2 - A Randomized Controlled Trial

AU - Park, Sun-Kyung

AU - Bae, Jinyoung

AU - Yoo, Seokha

AU - Kim, Won Ho

AU - Lim, Young-Jin

AU - Bahk, Jae-Hyon

AU - Kim, Jin-Tae

PY - 2019/12/26

Y1 - 2019/12/26

N2 - BACKGROUND: Spinal anesthesia using a surface landmark-guided technique can be challenging in patients with anatomical alterations of the lumbar spine; however, it is unclear whether using ultrasonography can decrease the technical difficulties in these populations. We assessed whether an ultrasound-assisted technique could reduce the number of needle passes required for block success compared with the landmark-guided technique in patients with abnormal spinal anatomy.METHODS: Forty-four patients with abnormal spinal anatomy including documented lumbar scoliosis and previous spinal surgery were randomized to receive either surface landmark-guided or preprocedural ultrasound-assisted spinal anesthesia. All spinal procedures were performed by 1 of 3 experienced anesthesiologists. The primary outcome was the number of needle passes required for successful dural puncture. Secondary outcomes included the success rate on the first pass, total procedure time, periprocedural pain scores, and the incidences of radicular pain, paresthesia, and bloody tap during the neuraxial procedure. Intergroup difference in the primary outcome was assessed for significance using Mann-Whitney U test.RESULTS: The median (interquartile range [IQR; range]) number of needle passes was significantly lower in the ultrasound group than in the landmark group (ultrasound 1.5 [1-3 {1-5}]; landmark 6 [2-9.3 {1-15}]; P < .001). First-pass success was achieved in 11 (50.0%) and 2 (9.1%) patients in the ultrasound and landmark groups, respectively (P = .007). The total procedure time, defined as the sum of the time for identifying landmarks and performing spinal anesthesia, did not differ significantly between the 2 groups (ultrasound 141 seconds [115-181 seconds {101-336 seconds}]; landmark 146 seconds [90-295 seconds {53-404 seconds}]; P = .888). The ultrasound group showed lower periprocedural pain scores compared with the landmark group (ultrasound 3.5 [1-5 {0-7}]; landmark 5.5 [3-8 {0-9}]; P = .012). The incidences of complications during the procedure showed no significant differences between the 2 groups.CONCLUSIONS: For anesthesiologists with experience in neuraxial ultrasonography, the use of ultrasound significantly reduces the technical difficulties of spinal anesthesia in patients with abnormal spinal anatomy compared with the landmark-guided technique. Our results can lead to practical suggestions that encourage the use of neuraxial ultrasonography for spinal anesthesia in such patients.

AB - BACKGROUND: Spinal anesthesia using a surface landmark-guided technique can be challenging in patients with anatomical alterations of the lumbar spine; however, it is unclear whether using ultrasonography can decrease the technical difficulties in these populations. We assessed whether an ultrasound-assisted technique could reduce the number of needle passes required for block success compared with the landmark-guided technique in patients with abnormal spinal anatomy.METHODS: Forty-four patients with abnormal spinal anatomy including documented lumbar scoliosis and previous spinal surgery were randomized to receive either surface landmark-guided or preprocedural ultrasound-assisted spinal anesthesia. All spinal procedures were performed by 1 of 3 experienced anesthesiologists. The primary outcome was the number of needle passes required for successful dural puncture. Secondary outcomes included the success rate on the first pass, total procedure time, periprocedural pain scores, and the incidences of radicular pain, paresthesia, and bloody tap during the neuraxial procedure. Intergroup difference in the primary outcome was assessed for significance using Mann-Whitney U test.RESULTS: The median (interquartile range [IQR; range]) number of needle passes was significantly lower in the ultrasound group than in the landmark group (ultrasound 1.5 [1-3 {1-5}]; landmark 6 [2-9.3 {1-15}]; P < .001). First-pass success was achieved in 11 (50.0%) and 2 (9.1%) patients in the ultrasound and landmark groups, respectively (P = .007). The total procedure time, defined as the sum of the time for identifying landmarks and performing spinal anesthesia, did not differ significantly between the 2 groups (ultrasound 141 seconds [115-181 seconds {101-336 seconds}]; landmark 146 seconds [90-295 seconds {53-404 seconds}]; P = .888). The ultrasound group showed lower periprocedural pain scores compared with the landmark group (ultrasound 3.5 [1-5 {0-7}]; landmark 5.5 [3-8 {0-9}]; P = .012). The incidences of complications during the procedure showed no significant differences between the 2 groups.CONCLUSIONS: For anesthesiologists with experience in neuraxial ultrasonography, the use of ultrasound significantly reduces the technical difficulties of spinal anesthesia in patients with abnormal spinal anatomy compared with the landmark-guided technique. Our results can lead to practical suggestions that encourage the use of neuraxial ultrasonography for spinal anesthesia in such patients.

U2 - 10.1213/ANE.0000000000004600

DO - 10.1213/ANE.0000000000004600

M3 - Article

C2 - 31880632

JO - Anesthesia and analgesia

JF - Anesthesia and analgesia

SN - 0003-2999

ER -