Long-term effects of neuraxial analgesia.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review article explores the potential longer-term implications of neuraxial analgesia in labour for both the mother and her child. RECENT FINDINGS: Neuraxial techniques for labour analgesia are well tolerated and effective, and long-term adverse sequelae are rare. Labour epidural analgesia is not independently associated with long-term headache, backache, postnatal depression or anal sphincter injury, and evidence supports that epidurals may offer protection against severe maternal morbidity, particularly in women at a higher risk of complications. However, there is an increasing awareness that postdural puncture headache may be associated with chronic headache, back pain and postnatal depression, emphasizing the need for adequate follow-up until symptoms resolve.For the neonate, a growing body of evidence refutes any association between epidural analgesia in labour and the later development of autism spectrum disorder. The clinical significance of epidural related maternal fever remains uncertain and is a research priority. SUMMARY: Women should continue to access the significant benefits of neuraxial analgesia in labour without undue concern about adverse sequelae for themselves or their offspring. Measures to prevent, appropriately manage and adequately follow-up women who have suffered complications of neuraxial analgesia, such as postdural puncture headache, are good practice and can mitigate the development of long-term sequelae.

Efficacy of therapies for post dural puncture headache.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Clinical management of postdural puncture headache (PDPH) remains an interdisciplinary challenge with significant impact on both morbidity and quality of life. This review aims to give an overview of the most recent literature on prophylactic and therapeutic measures and to discuss novel findings with regard to currently published consensus practice guideline recommendations. RECENT FINDINGS: Although current evidence does not support a recommendation of any specific prophylactic measure, new data is available on the use of intrathecal catheters to prevent PDPH and/or to avoid invasive procedures. In case of disabling or refractory symptoms despite conservative treatments, the epidural blood patch (EBP) remains the therapeutic gold standard and its use should not be delayed in the absence of contraindications. However, recent clinical studies and meta-analyses provide additional findings on the therapeutic use of local anesthetics as potential noninvasive alternatives for early symptom control. SUMMARY: There is continuing research focusing on both prophylactic and therapeutic measures offering promising data on potential alternatives to invasive procedures, although there is currently no treatment option that comes close to the effectiveness of an EBP. A better understanding of PDPH pathophysiology is not only necessary to identify new therapeutic targets, but also to recognize patients who benefit most from current treatments, as this might enhance their therapeutic efficacy.

Prophylactic Epidural Blood Patch or Prophylactic Epidural Infusion of Hydroxyethyl Starch in Preventing Post-Dural Puncture Headache - A Retrospective Study.

BACKGROUND: Post-dural puncture headache (PDPH) is particularly likely to happen in patients under obstetric care due to an unintentional dural puncture (UDP). There is as yet no ideal strategy for preventing UDP-induced PDPH. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of this study was to assess whether a prophylactic epidural blood patch (EBP) or prophylactic epidural infusion of hydroxyethyl starch (HES) is effective in preventing PDPH for parturients with UDP compared with conservative treatments. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective analysis from a single center's inpatient data. SETTING: Department of Anesthesiology at a single center. METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted of a single center's inpatient data from January 2017 through March 2020. The study included parturients with UDP during neuraxial anesthesia. The interventions of UDP included conservative treatment, prophylactic EBP, and prophylactic epidural infusion of HES. The incidence of PDPH, the use of intravenous aminophylline, therapeutic EBP, symptom onset, duration of headache, and duration of hospital stay were compared. RESULTS: A total of 85 patients were analyzed. The incidences of PDPH were 84%, 52.6% and 54.5% with conservative, prophylactic EBP, and prophylactic epidural HES treatments, respectively. Compared with the conservative treatment, prophylactic EBP and prophylactic epidural HES treatment significantly reduced the incidence of PDPH (P < 0.05). No significant difference was found between the prophylactic EBP and prophylactic epidural HES groups. Compared with the conservative treatment group, therapeutic EBP was significantly less used in the prophylactic EBP and prophylactic epidural HES groups (P < 0.05). Prophylactic EBP shortened the length of hospital stay of parturients with UDP (P < 0.05) while prophylactic epidural HES showed no statistical difference compared with conservative treatment. No severe complications, such as central nervous system and puncture site infection or nerve injury, were found in those patients. LIMITATIONS: Retrospective nature and single center data with a relatively small sample size. CONCLUSIONS: Prophylactic management with EBP and epidural infusion of HES has an effect in preventing the occurrence of PDPH; prophylactic EBP significantly shortened hospital stay length in parturients with UDP. KEY WORDS: Unintentional dural puncture, epidural blood patch, hydroxyethyl starch, post-dural puncture headache, parturient.

Consensus Practice Guidelines on Postdural Puncture Headache From a Multisociety, International Working Group: A Summary Report.

Importance: Postdural puncture headache (PDPH) can follow unintentional dural puncture during epidural techniques or intentional dural puncture during neuraxial procedures, such as a lumbar puncture or spinal anesthesia. Evidence-based guidance on the prevention, diagnosis, and management of this condition is, however, currently lacking. Objective: To fill the practice guidelines void and provide comprehensive information and patient-centric recommendations for preventing, diagnosing, and managing PDPH. Evidence Review: With input from committee members and stakeholders of 6 participating professional societies, 10 review questions that were deemed important for the prevention, diagnosis, and management of PDPH were developed. A literature search for each question was performed in MEDLINE on March 2, 2022. Additional relevant clinical trials, systematic reviews, and research studies published through March 2022 were also considered for practice guideline development and shared with collaborator groups. Each group submitted a structured narrative review along with recommendations that were rated according to the US Preventive Services Task Force grading of evidence. Collaborators were asked to vote anonymously on each recommendation using 2 rounds of a modified Delphi approach. Findings: After 2 rounds of electronic voting by a 21-member multidisciplinary collaborator team, 47 recommendations were generated to provide guidance on the risk factors for and the prevention, diagnosis, and management of PDPH, along with ratings for the strength and certainty of evidence. A 90% to 100% consensus was obtained for almost all recommendations. Several recommendations were rated as having moderate to low certainty. Opportunities for future research were identified. Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this consensus statement suggest that current approaches to the treatment and management of PDPH are not uniform due to the paucity of evidence. The practice guidelines, however, provide a framework for individual clinicians to assess PDPH risk, confirm the diagnosis, and adopt a systematic approach to its management.

Atraumatic versus cutting needles in fluoroscopic lumbar puncture.

OBJECTIVES: Atraumatic needles are known to reduce complication rates of blind lumbar punctures (LP), however, their use in fluoroscopically guided LP is less studied. This study assessed the comparative difficulty of performing fluoroscopic lumbar puncture with atraumatic needles. METHODS: Single-centre retrospective case-control study comparing atraumatic and conventional or "cutting" needles using fluoroscopic time and radiation dose (Dose Area Product or DAP) as surrogate markers. Patients were assessed from two comparable eight-month periods before and after a policy change to primary use of atraumatic needles. RESULTS: 105 procedures with a cutting needle were performed in the group prior to the policy change. Median fluoroscopy time was 48 sec and median DAP was 3.14. Of 102 procedures performed in the group after the policy change, 99 were performed with an atraumatic needle and three with a cutting needle after initial attempt with an atraumatic needle. Median fluoroscopy time was 41 sec and median DAP was 3.28. The mean number of attempts was 1.02 in the cutting needle group and 1.05 in the atraumatic needle group. There was no significant difference in median fluoroscopy time, median DAP, or mean number of attempts. CONCLUSION: Fluoroscopic screening time, DAP and mean number of attempts were not significantly increased with primary use of atraumatic needles for LP. Use of atraumatic needles should be considered in fluoroscopic LP given the lower complication rates. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This study provides new data showing that the use of atraumatic needles does not increase the difficulty of fluoroscopically guided LP.

Efficacy of pharmacological therapies for preventing post-dural puncture headaches in obstetric patients: a Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Post-dural puncture headache (PDPH) is a major complication of neuraxial anesthesia. PDPH usually occurs after Caesarean section in obstetric patients. The efficacy of prophylactic pharmacological therapies remains controversial. METHODS: Seven pharmacological therapies (aminophylline (AMP), dexamethasone, gabapentin/pregabalin (GBP/PGB), hydrocortisone, magnesium, ondansetron (OND), and propofol (PPF)), were studied in this Bayesian network meta-analysis. The primary outcome was the cumulative incidence of PDPH within 7 days. Secondary outcomes included the incidence of PDPH at 24 and 48 h postoperatively, the severity of headache in PDPH patients (24, 48, and 72 h postoperatively), and postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). RESULTS: Twenty-two randomized controlled trials with 4,921 pregnant women (2,723 parturients received prophylactic pharmacological therapies) were included. The analyses demonstrated that PPF, OND, and AMP were efficient in decreasing the cumulative incidence of PDPH during the follow-up period compared to the placebo group (OR = 0.19, 95% CI: 0.05 to 0.70; OR = 0.37, 95% CI: 0.16 to 0.87; OR = 0.40, 95% CI: 0.18 to 0.84, respectively). PPF and OND had the lower incidence of PONV compared to the placebo group (OR = 0.07, 95% CI: 0.01 to 0.30; and OR = 0.12, 95% CI: 0.02 to 0.63). No significant difference in other outcomes was found among different therapies. CONCLUSIONS: Based on available data, PPF, OND, and AMP may have better efficacy in decreasing the incidence of PDPH compared to the placebo group. No significant side effects were revealed. Better-designed studies are requested to verify these conclusions.

Epidural hydroxyethyl starch ameliorating postdural puncture headache after accidental dural puncture.

BACKGROUND: No convincing modalities have been shown to completely prevent postdural puncture headache (PDPH) after accidental dural puncture (ADP) during obstetric epidural procedures. We aimed to evaluate the role of epidural administration of hydroxyethyl starch (HES) in preventing PDPH following ADP, regarding the prophylactic efficacy and side effects. METHODS: Between January 2019 and February 2021, patients with a recognized ADP during epidural procedures for labor or cesarean delivery were retrospectively reviewed to evaluate the prophylactic strategies for the development of PDPH at a single tertiary hospital. The development of PDPH, severity and duration of headache, adverse events associated with prophylactic strategies, and hospital length of stay postpartum were reported. RESULTS: A total of 105 patients experiencing ADP received a re-sited epidural catheter. For PDPH prophylaxis, 46 patients solely received epidural analgesia, 25 patients were administered epidural HES on epidural analgesia, and 34 patients received two doses of epidural HES on and after epidural analgesia, respectively. A significant difference was observed in the incidence of PDPH across the groups (epidural analgesia alone, 31 [67.4%]; HES-Epidural analgesia, ten [40.0%]; HES-Epidural analgesia-HES, five [14.7%]; P <0.001). No neurologic deficits, including paresthesias and motor deficits related to prophylactic strategies, were reported from at least 2 months to up to more than 2 years after delivery. An overall backache rate related to HES administration was 10%. The multivariable regression analysis revealed that the HES-Epidural analgesia-HES strategy was significantly associated with reduced risk of PDPH following ADP (OR = 0.030, 95% confidence interval: 0.006-0.143; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The incorporated prophylactic strategy was associated with a great decrease in the risk of PDPH following obstetric ADP. This strategy consisted of re-siting an epidural catheter with continuous epidural analgesia and two doses of epidural HES, respectively, on and after epidural analgesia. The efficacy and safety profiles of this strategy have to be investigated further.

A double-blind placebo controlled trial on effectiveness of prophylactic dexamethasone for preventing post- dural puncture headache after spinal anesthesia for cesarean section.

AIM: To determine the effect of dexamethasone in reducing post-dural puncture headache (PDPH) after spinal anesthesia for cesarean section (CS). METHODS: A double blind placebo controlled randomized trial of parturients undergoing CS under spinal anesthesia was conducted. Participants (n = 192) were randomly (1:1 ratio) given either 2mls (8 mg) of dexamethasone (n = 96) intravenously or 2mls of normal saline (n = 96) intravenously as placebo after clamping the umbilical cord. Visual analogue scale was used to assess the incidence and severity of PDPH on the first and fourth post-operative days. The primary outcome measure was incidence of PDPH while the secondary outcome measure was incidence of nausea and vomiting. Analysis was by intention-to-treat. RESULTS: Baseline socio-demographic and clinical variables were similar between the two groups and none of the women was lost to follow up. The incidence of PDPH (8.3% vs 25.0%; p = .002) and nausea (11.5% vs 25.0%; p = .015) were significantly lower in dexamethasone group. The severity of headache in the control groups were statistically higher on the first (p < .001) and fourth (p < .001) post-operative days. . CONCLUSION: Prophylactic dexamethasone reduces the incidence and severity of PDPH on both the first and fourth post-operative day after spinal anesthesia for CS. There was also an improvement on the incidence of nausea on the dexamethasone group compared to control.

Opioids for the Prevention of Post-dural Puncture Headache in Obstetrics: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Efficacy and Safety.

BACKGROUND: Post-dural puncture headache (PDPH), or spinal headache, is the most common serious complication resulting from iatrogenic puncture of the dura during epidural or spinal anesthesia and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leak in pregnant women. OBJECTIVE: To analyze the effectiveness and safety of opioids as a prophylaxis approach in treating obstetric patients who underwent unintentional dural puncture during the initiation of neuraxial anesthesia. STUDY DESIGN: A systematice review and meta-analysis. SETTING: No restriction regarding study type. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane library were searched for available papers published up to September 2020. RESULTS: According to the eligibility criteria, 10 studies were included with post-dural puncture headache (PDPH) incidence as the primary outcome and the number of epidural blood patch (EBP) required as the second outcome. The risk estimates of each study were reported as odds ratios (ORs). The results showed morphine does not decrease the incidence of PDPH (OR = 0.45, 95% CI: 0.15 - 1.34, P = 0.153, I2 = 74.4%, Pheterogeneity = 0.004) and the use of EBP (OR = 0.40, 95% CI: 0.08 - 1.95, P = 0.259, I2=73.7%, Pheterogeneity = 0.004). Fentanyl does not decrease the incidence of PDPH (OR = 0.35, 95% CI: 0.01-13.77, P = 0.576, I2 = 81.0%, Pheterogeneity = 0.022). LIMITATIONS: The small number of included studies, high heterogeneity, and variety in study designs. CONCLUSIONS: Exposure to opioids for any reason after the diagnosis of unintentional dural puncture is not associated with a reduced risk of PDPH and does not decrease the need for therapeutic EBP.

The impact of aminophylline on incidence and severity of post-dural puncture headache: A meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: This meta-analysis aimed at addressing the impact of aminophylline use on risk and severity of post-dural puncture headache (PDPH). METHODS: Electronic databases (i.e., Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane controlled trials register) were searched from inception to the 12th of January 2021 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed the efficacy of aminophylline for treatment (i.e., primary outcome) or prophylaxis (i.e., secondary outcome) against PDPH in various clinical settings. The study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020207713). RESULTS: A total of ten RCTs (n = 976) were included for analysis. Five studies (n = 270) revealed a lower pain score in patients with PDPH receiving aminophylline than that in the placebo group (standardised mean differences = -1.34, 95% confidence interval (CI): -1.76 to -0.91). In contrast, five trials (four on Caesarean sections and one on lower extremity surgeries, n = 706) demonstrated no prophylactic effect of aminophylline against PDPH at 24 [risk ratio (RR) = 0.70, 95% CI: 0.30-1.63, n = 637], 48 (RR = 0.48, 95% CI: 0.22-1.05, n = 506), and 72 (RR = 0.89, 95% CI: 0.54-1.48, n = 317) hours. Nevertheless, sensitivity analysis demonstrated significant prophylactic efficacy after removal of one study adopting a relatively low dose of aminophylline (RR = 0.36, 95% CI: 0.19-0.67). Most studies reported no increase in the incidence of adverse events associated with aminophylline use compared with that in the control group. CONCLUSION: Our results indicated that aminophylline might be a reasonable alternative for treating PDPH. However, its use for prevention was not established in this meta-analysis and further large-scale studies are warranted to support this option.

Preventing Post-Lumbar Puncture Headache.

Post-lumbar puncture headache is the main adverse event from lumbar puncture and occurs in 3.5% to 33% of patients, causing functional and socio-professional disability. We searched the post-lumbar puncture headache literature and, based on this review and personal expertise, identified and addressed 19 frequently asked questions regarding post-lumbar puncture headache risk factors and prevention. Among the nonmodifiable factors, older age is associated with a lower incidence of post-lumbar puncture headache, while female sex, lower body mass index, and history of headache might be associated with increased risk. The use of atraumatic, noncutting needles is the most effective intervention for post-lumbar puncture headache prevention. These needles are not more difficult to use than cutting needles. Other commonly recommended measures (eg, fluid supplementation, caffeine) appear unhelpful, and some (eg, bed rest) may worsen post-lumbar puncture headache.

Preventing Post Dural Puncture Headache after Intrathecal Drug Delivery System Implantation Through Preventive Fibrin Glue Application: A Retrospective Study.

BACKGROUND: Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leakage resulting in post dural puncture headache (PDPH) is a frequent adverse effect observed after intrathecal drug delivery system (IDDS) implantation. CSF leakage symptoms negatively affect patient quality of life and can result in additional complications. Fibrin glue was used to treat CSF leakage syndrome. We developed a procedure to reduce the incidence of PDPH by preventing CSF leakage with the use of fibrin glue during surgery. OBJECTIVES: The main outcome criterion for this study was the incidence of PDPH syndrome after IDDS implantation with or without preventive fibrin glue application during the procedure. STUDY DESIGN: We designed a monocentric retrospective cohort study to compare the incidence of PDPH due to CSF leakage syndrome after lumbar puncture in patients with an implanted intrathecal pump, with or without preventive fibrin glue application during the procedure. SETTING: The study was held in the Anesthesiology and Pain department of the  Integrative Cancer Institute (ICO), Angers - France. METHODS: The study compared 2 patient cohorts over 2 successive periods. Fibrin glue was injected into the introducer needle puncture pathway after placement of the catheter immediately following needle removal. RESULTS: The no-glue group included 107 patients, whereas the glue group included 92 patients.Two application failures were observed (2.04%). Fibrin glue application results in a significant decrease in PDPH incidence, from 32.7% in the no-glue group to 10.92 % (P < 0.001) in the glue group. In regard to severity, in the no-glue group, 37.1% of PDPH syndromes were mild, 34.3% were moderate, and 28.6% were severe. In the fibrin glue group, 80% of PDPH syndromes were mild, and 20% were moderate. No severe PDPHs were reported after fibrin glue application. Duration of symptoms was also statistically shorter in the fibrin glue group (maximum of 3 days vs. 15 days in the no-glue group). In a univariate analysis, preventive fibrin glue application and age are significant to prevent PDPH. In multivariate analysis, only fibrin glue application was statistically significant (odds ratio, 0.26; P = 0.0008). No adverse effects linked to fibrin glue were observed. LIMITATIONS: The main limitation of this study is its retrospective nature. In addition, this study is from a single center with a potential selection bias and a center effect. CONCLUSIONS: The novel use of fibrin glue is promising in terms of its effect on PDPH and its safety profile. Its moderate cost and reproducibility make it an affordable and efficient technique.

A nudge towards better lumbar puncture practice.

BACKGROUND: Despite a body of evidence demonstrating reduced incidence of post-lumbar puncture headache associated with pencil-point (vs bevelled-edge) needles, their use remains variable in the UK. METHODS: A multimodal longitudinal intervention was performed over a 12-month period at a tertiary neurology referral centre. In addition to simulation training using pencil-point needles and an electronic documentation pro forma, a change in the default needles presented in clinical environments was performed. RESULTS: Prior to the intervention, pencil-point needle usage was minimal. Documentation significantly improved throughout the intervention period. Simulation training interventions only resulted in transient, moderate improvements in pencil-point needle usage. However, changing the default produced a marked increase in use that was sustained. No significant changes in operator success rate were found. CONCLUSIONS: In the context of wider literature on the power of default options in driving behavioural choices, changing defaults may be an effective, inexpensive and acceptable intervention to improve lumbar puncture practice.

Does the Technique for Assessing Loss of Resistance Alter the Magnitude of Epidural Needle Tip Overshoot?

INTRODUCTION: Postdural puncture headache due to accidental dural puncture is a consequence of excessive needle tip overshoot distance after entering the epidural space via a loss of resistance (LOR) technique. We are not aware of any quantitative comparison of the magnitude of needle tip overshoot (distance traveled by the needle tip beyond the point where LOR can be discerned) for the various LOR assessment techniques that are taught. Such a comparison may provide insight into contributing factors of accidental dural puncture and associated postdural puncture headache. METHODS: A custom-built simulator was used to evaluate the following 3 LOR assessment techniques: incremental needle advancement, intermittent LOR assessment (II); continuous needle advancement, high-frequency intermittent LOR assessment (CI); and continuous needle advancement, continuous LOR assessment (CC). RESULTS: There were significant mean differences in maximum overshoot past a virtual LOR plane due to technique (F(2,124) = 79.31, P < 0.001) (Fig. 2). Specifically, maximum overshoot was greater with technique II [mean = 3.8 mm, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 3.4-4.3] versus either CC (mean = 1.9 mm, 95% CI = 1.5-1.8, P < 0.001) or CI (mean = 1.4 mm, 95% CI = 0.9-2.3, P < 0.001). Differences in maximum overshoot between CC and CI were not statistically different (P = 0.996). Maximum overshoot was greater at 4 cm (mean = 3.0 mm, 95% CI = 2.6-3.4) compared with 5 cm (mean = 2.3 mm, 95% CI = 2.0-2.5, P = 0.044), 6 cm (mean = 2.0 mm, 95% CI = 1.9-2.2, P = 0.054), 7 cm (mean = 1.9 mm, 95% CI = 1.7-2.1, P = 0.002), and 8 cm (mean = 1.8 mm, 95% CI = 1.6-2.1, P = 0.001). In addition, maximum overshoot at 5 cm was greater than that at 7 cm (P = 0.020) and 8 cm (P = 0.037). The other LOR depths were not statistically significantly different from each other. Depth did not have a significant interaction with technique (P = 0.517). Technique preference had neither a significant relationship to maximum overshoot (P = 0.588) nor a significant interaction with LOR assessment technique (P = 0.689). DISCUSSION: Technique II LOR assessment produced the greatest needle overshoot past the simulated LOR plane after obtaining LOR. This was consistent across all LOR depths. In this bench study, the II technique resulted in the deepest needle tip maximum overshoot. We are in the process of designing a clinical study to collect similar data in patients.

Prophylactic Intrathecal Morphine and Prevention of Post-Dural Puncture Headache: A Randomized Double-blind Trial.

BACKGROUND: Prophylactic epidural morphine administration after unintentional dural puncture with a large-bore needle has been shown to decrease the incidence of post-dural puncture headache. The authors hypothesized that prophylactic administration of intrathecal morphine would decrease the incidence of post-dural puncture headache and/or need for epidural blood patch after unintentional dural puncture. METHODS: Parturients with an intrathecal catheter in situ after unintentional dural puncture with a 17-g Tuohy needle during intended epidural catheter placement for labor analgesia were enrolled in this randomized, double-blind trial. After delivery, subjects were randomized to receive intrathecal morphine 150 µg or normal saline. The primary outcome was the incidence of post-dural puncture headache. Secondary outcomes included onset, duration, and severity of post-dural puncture headache, the presence of cranial nerve symptoms and the type of treatment the patient received. RESULTS: Sixty-one women were included in the study. The incidence of post-dural puncture headache was 21 of 27 (78%) in the intrathecal morphine group and 27 of 34 (79%) in the intrathecal saline group (difference, -1%; 95% CI, -25% to 24%). There were no differences between groups in the onset, duration, or severity of headache, or presence of cranial nerve symptoms. Epidural blood patch was administered to 10 of 27 (37%) of subjects in the intrathecal morphine and 11 of 21 (52%) of the intrathecal saline group (difference 15%; 95% CI, -18% to 48%). CONCLUSIONS: The present findings suggest that a single prophylactic intrathecal morphine dose of 150 µg administered shortly after delivery does not decrease the incidence or severity of post-dural puncture headache after unintentional dural puncture. This study does not support the clinical usefulness of prophylactic intrathecal morphine after an unintentional dural puncture.

Postdural puncture headache in the obstetric population: a new approach?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The gold standard for the treatment of postdural puncture headache (PDPH) is the epidural blood patch (EBP). Regional techniques-sphenopalatine ganglion block (SPGB), greater occipital nerve block (GONB) and trigger point infiltration (TPI)-can also be used for the treatment of PDPH. Our objective was to evaluate the efficacy of these peripheral nerve blocks (PNBs) in the treatment of PDPH. METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted including all patients with PDPH in the obstetrics department of our institution between April 2016 and December 2017. Data were retrieved from clinical records regarding anesthetic technique, symptoms, treatment, Numeric Pain Score (NPS) before and after treatment, among others. RESULTS: We observed 50 cases of PDPH: 25 following spinal anesthesia, 19 following epidural block and 6 following combined spinal-epidural. Of these, seven were managed conservatively and one received EBP as first-line treatment. The remaining 42 patients received PNB as first-line treatment. Of these, 27 received only 1 course of PNB, while 15 received 2 courses. We observed a statistically significant improvement in the NPS after the first course of blocks (n=42), with a reduction of the median NPS by 6.0 (IQR 4.0-7.5; p<0.001). Improvement was also observed after the second course of blocks (n=15), with a reduction of the median NPS of 3.5 (IQR 1.5-5.0; p=0.02). Due to treatment failure, 9 of the 42 patients treated with PNB required EBP. None of these were cases following spinal anesthesia. CONCLUSION: SPGB, GONB and TPI can be safe and effective options for treatment of PDPH, but do not completely eliminate the need for EBP. Prospective studies designed to identify factors associated with unsuccessful treatment are required.

Prevention of post-dural puncture headache: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: We investigated 952 subjects undergoing diagnostic lumbar puncture (LP) to study the effects of needle size, needle design and stylet reinsertion on the risk of post-dural puncture headache (PDPH). METHODS: This randomized double-blind study was performed at Umeå University Hospital in Sweden during 2013-2018. Subjects were randomly assigned one of three needles [22 gauge (G) atraumatic, 25G atraumatic and 25G cutting] and stylet reinsertion before needle withdrawal or not. The main outcome measure was PDPH assessed by standardized telephone interview(s) 5 days after the LP, repeated until headache cessation. We used logistic regression to calculate odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for PDPH. RESULTS: The mean (SD) age was 51.1 (16.7) years and 53.6% were females. The smaller bore (25G) atraumatic needle incurred a lower risk of headache compared with the larger bore (22G) atraumatic needle [22.0% (69/314) vs. 30.2% (98/324); OR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.45-0.93] and compared with the cutting needle [32.8% (103/314); OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.40-0.82]. Reinserting the stylet before needle withdrawal did not reduce the risk of headache. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that a 25G atraumatic needle is superior to a larger atraumatic needle, and to a same-sized cutting needle, in preventing PDPH after diagnostic LP. In contrast to one earlier report, this study did not find that stylet reinsertion was effective in preventing PDPH. This study provides class I evidence that a small atraumatic needle decreases the risk of PDPH and that stylet reinsertion does not influence PDPH risk.

Intrathecal catheterisation after observed accidental dural puncture in labouring women: update of a meta-analysis and a trial-sequential analysis.

BACKGROUND: Our meta-analysis from 2013 showed that inserting a catheter intrathecally after an observed accidental dural puncture can reduce the need for epidural blood patch in labouring women requesting epidural analgesia. We updated our conventional meta-analysis and added a trial-sequential analysis (TSA). METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted to identify studies that compared inserting the catheter intrathecally with an epidural catheter re-site or with no intervention. The extracted data were pooled and the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (95%CI) for the incidence of post-dural puncture headache (PDPH) was calculated, using the random effects model. A contour-enhanced funnel plot was constructed. A TSA was performed and the cumulative Z score, monitoring and futility boundaries were constructed. RESULTS: Our search identified 13 studies, reporting on 1653 patients, with a low risk of bias. The RR for the incidence of PDPH was 0.82 (95%CI 0.71 to 0.95) and the RR for the need for epidural blood patch was 0.62 (95%CI 0.49 to 0.79); heterogeneity of both analyses was high. The TSA showed that the monitoring or futility boundaries were not crossed, indicating insufficient data to exclude a type I error of statistical analysis. Contour-enhanced funnel plots were symmetric, suggesting no publication bias. CONCLUSIONS: Conventional meta-analyses showed for the first time that intrathecal catheterisation can reduce the incidence of PDPH. However, TSA did not corroborate this finding. Despite increasing use in clinical practice there is no firm evidence on which to base a definite conclusion.

Complications and liability related to regional and neuraxial anesthesia.

Regional anesthesia is responsible for approximately one-fifth of professional liability claims. The present investigation evaluated common and rare complications related to regional and neuraxial anesthesia, including postdural puncture headache, backache, transient neurological symptoms, inadvertent intrathecal injection, epidural hematoma and abscess, meningitis, arachnoiditis, postoperative urinary retention, local anesthetic systemic toxicity, and cardiac arrest. Regional anesthetic techniques are increasingly used in perioperative care of surgical patients for acute pain management and for chronic pain states. This manuscript also provides an overview and analysis of the existing literature and makes some recommendations in terms of strategies to prevent or minimize the potential patient injury, with a focus on those more commonly associated with patient injury and liability exposure. The role of ultrasound in preventing patient injury during regional anesthesia is also discussed.