The use of a sound-enabled device to measure pressure during insertion of an epidural catheter in women in labour.

The insertion of an epidural catheter for labour analgesia may be challenging. This observational study compared pressures during insertion of an epidural catheter in pregnant (n = 35) and non-pregnant (n = 10) women, using an acoustic device for locating the epidural space that also records and stores pressure data during the procedure. In both groups, we compared the maximum pressure just before loss of resistance, the pressure in the epidural space and the pressure in the inserted epidural catheter. Maximum pressure just before loss of resistance in the pregnant women was significantly lower compared with the non-pregnant women. Pressures in the epidural space and with the disposable tubing connected to the inserted epidural catheter were greater in pregnant women than in non-pregnant women. The results support the hypothesis that physiological changes in the third trimester of pregnancy are the reason why epidural catheters are more difficult to insert in women in labour.

Thoracic epidural puncture guided by an acoustic signal: clinical results.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: In previous studies we have demonstrated that it is possible and safe to identify the lumbar epidural space by an acoustic and visible signal. The use of an experimental set-up constructed for this purpose, the acoustic puncture assist device, the lumbar epidural puncture procedure became both audible and visible. In the present study we have extended the use of the device to localize the thoracic epidural space. We have also evaluated whether the device can be used as a practical tool to confirm correct catheter placement. METHODS: In 100 consecutive patients a prototype of the acoustic puncture assist device was connected to the epidural needle in order to localize the epidural space. The device translates the pressure encountered by the needle tip into a corresponding acoustic and visible signal and enables the anaesthesiologist to detect the epidural space by means of the acoustic signal. After catheter insertion, local anaesthetic was administered. Subsequently the epidural block was tested. In 10 patients the device was also connected to the epidural catheter after its insertion into the epidural space. RESULTS: In all 100 patients included in the study the epidural space was successfully located by means of the acoustic signal. The only recorded complication was intravascular catheter placement in two patients. CONCLUSIONS: It is possible to localize the thoracic epidural space guided by an acoustic signal. The method was shown to be safe, reliable and simple. Potential implications of this technique include better needle control, improved monitoring for training purposes and for clinical documentation of the thoracic epidural puncture as well as identifying correct catheter placement.

Clinical results with a new acoustic device to identify the epidural space.

Fifty patients scheduled for surgery under lumbar epidural anaesthesia were included in a study to evaluate the possibility of localising the epidural space solely by means of an acoustic signal. With an experimental set-up, the pressure generated during the epidural puncture procedure was translated into a corresponding acoustic signal. One anaesthetist held the epidural needle with both hands and detected the epidural space by means of this acoustic signal. At the same time, a second anaesthetist applied the loss of resistance technique and functioned as control. In all patients the epidural space was located with the acoustic signal. This was confirmed by conventional loss of resistance in 49 (98%) of the patients; in one patient (2%) it was not. We conclude that it is possible to locate the epidural space using an acoustic signal alone.