Bevel direction and postdural puncture headache: a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The effect of lumbar puncture needle bevel direction on the incidence of postdural puncture headache (PDPH) is somewhat controversial. We performed a meta-analysis of available trials to determine if bevel direction during lumbar puncture would influence the incidence of PDPH. REVIEW SUMMARY: Studies were identified primarily by searching the National Library of Medicine's PubMed database (1966 to November 29, 2004) and abstracts from several national meetings (American Society of Anesthesiology, International Anesthesia Research Society, American Society of Regional Anesthesia, Society of Obstetric Anesthesia and Perinatology) for terms related to needle and bevel direction. Inclusion criteria were assessment of the incidence of PDPH after lumbar puncture with a cutting needle (eg, Quincke, Tuohy), comparison of a "parallel" (bevel oriented in a longitudinal or cephalad to caudad direction) to "perpendicular" (bevel oriented in a transverse direction) orientation during needle insertion, randomized trials, and trials primarily in adult populations. Data on study characteristics and incidence of PDPH were abstracted from qualified studies and subsequently analyzed. The search resulted in 52 abstracts from which the original articles were obtained and data abstracted, with ultimately a total of 5 articles meeting all inclusion criteria. Insertion of a non-pencil-point/cutting needle with the bevel oriented in a parallel/longitudinal fashion resulted in a significantly lower incidence of PDPH compared with that oriented in a perpendicular/transverse fashion (unadjusted rates of 10.9% versus 25.8%; odds ratio = 0.29 [95% CI = 0.17-0.50]). CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-analysis indicates that with use of a cutting needle, insertion in a parallel/longitudinal fashion may significantly reduce the incidence of PDPH, although the reasons for this decrease are unclear.

Survey of the utilization of regional and general anesthesia in a tertiary teaching hospital.

BACKGROUND: Although the subspecialty of regional anesthesiology has become an important focus during residency training, there are many factors that might influence a resident's experience in regional anesthesia (RA). There are few data examining the utilization of regional techniques in an anesthesiology residency program. We undertook a prospective observational study to determine the frequency and reasons for not choosing RA in cases for which it was considered an option. METHODS: All scheduled operative procedures that were amenable to neuraxial or major peripheral regional anesthetic techniques were surveyed. Data recorded included the type of intraoperative anesthetic used, type of anesthesiology faculty performing the regional block (regional anesthesiologist vs general anesthesiologist), and reasons for not choosing RA when a regional anesthetic technique was feasible. RESULTS: Of the 2301 surgical procedures amenable to a regional technique, 839 (36.5%) involved use of regional anesthetic, and 1462 (63.5%) involved only a general anesthetic. Of the subjects receiving RA, 32% were performed by general anesthesiology faculty, and 68% were performed by regional anesthesiology faculty. The most common type of regional anesthetic performed by the general anesthesiology faculty was neuraxial blockade (95.2%) (vs 52.5% by regional anesthesiology faculty). Of the cases not involving RA, the reasons were anesthesiology related (40%), surgeon related (34%), patient related (12%), and medical contraindication related (14%). CONCLUSIONS: Our prospective observational study suggests that anesthesiology-related reasons may be an important factor for not undertaking these techniques. Although we did not specifically examine the effect on resident education, our study does provide some evidence to support program directors and department chiefs to set up their regional rotations with faculty most likely to perform RA.