Superiority of multi-orifice over single-orifice epidural catheters for labor analgesia and cesarean delivery

被引:25
作者
Segal, S [1 ]
Eappen, S [1 ]
Datta, S [1 ]
机构
[1] HARVARD UNIV,SCH MED,DEPT ANAESTHESIA,BOSTON,MA 02115
关键词
anesthetic techniques; obstetric; epidural catheters; equipment; epidural anesthesia;
D O I
10.1016/S0952-8180(97)00232-8
中图分类号
R614 [麻醉学];
学科分类号
100217 ;
摘要
Study Objective: To investigate whether a change from a single-orifice to multi-orifice catheter could reduce the incidence of inadequate epidural blocks requiring replacement of the epidural catheter in obstetric patients Study Design: Prospective before-after cohort study. Setting: Obstetric unit at a university hospital. Patients: 872 patients requesting epidural analgesia for vaginal delivery or cesarean section. Interventions: Patients received epidural analgesia via single-orifice (n = 433) or multi-orifice (n = 439) epidural catheters, depending on the month of the trial. Measurements and Main Results: Patient characteristics, obstetric procedure, anesthesiologist characteristics, and details of epidural placement did not differ significantly between the groups. The overall replacement rate was 14.3% in the single-orifice group versus 9.3% in the multi-orifice group (p = 0.032). There were no differences in the frequency of replacement for subarachnoid placement or migration, immediate intravascular placement, vascular migration, or absence of any block. Significantly fewer catheters were replaced in the multi-orifice group for inadequate analgesia, defined as unblocked segments or unilateral block (6.4% vs. 2.8%, p = 0.018). Paresthesias were less common in the multi-orifice group (22.4% vs. 31.5%, p = 0.003). There were no unrecognized subarachnoid or vascular catheter placements in either group. Conclusions: The multi-orifice design offers significant advantages over the single-orifice type for obstetricepidural analgesia. (C) 1997 by Elsevier Science Inc.
引用
收藏
页码:109 / 112
页数:4
相关论文
共 12 条
[1]   EPIDURAL CATHETERS OF THE MULTI-ORIFICE TYPE - DANGERS AND COMPLICATIONS [J].
BECK, H ;
BRASSOW, F ;
DOEHN, M ;
BAUSE, H ;
DZIADZKA, A ;
ESCH, JSA .
ACTA ANAESTHESIOLOGICA SCANDINAVICA, 1986, 30 (07) :549-555
[2]   A NEW EPIDURAL CATHETER - CLOSER EYES FOR SAFETY [J].
COLLIER, CB ;
GATT, SP .
ANAESTHESIA, 1993, 48 (09) :803-806
[3]  
COLLIER CB, 1994, REGION ANESTH, V19, P378
[4]   AN ANALYSIS OF COMPLICATIONS OF EXTRADURAL AND CAUDAL BLOCK [J].
DAWKINS, CJM .
ANAESTHESIA, 1969, 24 (04) :554-+
[5]  
EAPPEN S, 1995, REGION ANESTH, V20, P69
[6]  
FINUCANE BT, 1979, ANESTHESIOLOGY, V50, P168
[7]  
JAMES CF, 1991, MANUAL COMPLICATIONS, P459
[8]   USERS GUIDES TO THE MEDICAL LITERATURE .4. HOW TO USE AN ARTICLE ABOUT HARM [J].
LEVINE, M ;
WALTER, S ;
LEE, H ;
HAINES, T ;
HOLBROOK, A ;
MOYER, V ;
GUYATT, G ;
BASS, E ;
BROWMAN, G ;
COOK, D ;
FARKOUH, M ;
GERSTEIN, H ;
HAYWARD, R ;
HAYNES, B ;
JAESCHKE, R ;
JUNIPER, E ;
LAUPACIS, A ;
NAYLOR, D ;
NISHIKAWA, J ;
OXMAN, A ;
PATEL, A ;
PHILBRICK, J ;
RICHARDSON, S ;
SAUVE, S ;
SACKETT, D ;
SINCLAIR, J ;
STROM, B ;
TROUT, KS ;
TUNIS, S ;
WILLIAMS, J ;
WILSON, M .
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 1994, 271 (20) :1615-1619
[9]   A COMPARISON BETWEEN OPEN-END (SINGLE HOLE) AND CLOSED-END (3 LATERAL HOLES) EPIDURAL CATHETERS - COMPLICATIONS AND QUALITY OF SENSORY BLOCKADE [J].
MICHAEL, S ;
RICHMOND, MN ;
BIRKS, RJS .
ANAESTHESIA, 1989, 44 (07) :578-580
[10]   COMPARISON OF COMPLICATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH SINGLE-HOLED AND MULTI-HOLED EXTRADURAL CATHETERS [J].
MORRISON, LMM ;
BUCHAN, AS .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIA, 1990, 64 (02) :183-185