A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Preprocedural ultrasound versus landmark techniques for spinal anesthesia performed by novice residents in elderly: a randomized controlled trial. | LitMetric

Background: Spinal anesthesia using the midline approach might be technically difficult in geriatric population. We hypothesized that pre-procedural ultrasound (US)-guided paramedian technique and pre-procedural US-guided midline technique would result in a different spinal anesthesia success rate at first attempt when compared with the conventional landmark-guided midline technique in elderly patients.

Methods: In this prospective, randomized, controlled study, one hundred-eighty consenting patients scheduled for elective surgery were randomized into the conventional surface landmark-guided midline technique (group LM), the pre-procedural US-guided paramedian technique (group UP), or the pre-procedural US-guided midline technique (group UM) with 60 patients in each group. All spinal anesthesia were performed by a novice resident.

Results: The successful dural puncture rate on first attempt (primary outcome) was higher in groups LM and UM (77 and 73% respectively) than in group UP (42%; P < 0.001). The median number of attempts was lower in groups LM and UM (1 [1] and 1 [1-1.75] respectively) than in group UP (2 [1, 2]; P < 0.001). The median number of passes was lower in groups LM and UM (2 [0.25-3] and 2 [0-4]; respectively) than in group UP (4 [2-7.75]; P < 0.001). The time taken to perform the spinal anesthesia was not different between groups LM and UM (87.24 ± 79.51 s and 116.32 ± 98.12 s, respectively) but shorter than in group UP (154.58 ± 91.51 s; P < 0.001).

Conclusions: A pre-procedural US scan did not improve the ease of midline and paramedian spinal anesthesia as compared to the conventional landmark midline technique when performed by junior residents in elderly population.

Trial Registration: Retrospectively registered at Clinicaltrials.gov, registration number NCT02658058, date of registration: January 18, 2016.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6849309PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12871-019-0882-8DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

spinal anesthesia
16
midline technique
16
pre-procedural us-guided
12
technique group
12
anesthesia performed
8
performed novice
8
randomized controlled
8
us-guided paramedian
8
paramedian technique
8
us-guided midline
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!