A randomized comparison of loss of resistance versus loss of resistance plus electrical stimulation: effect on success of thoracic epidural placement.

BACKGROUND: Loss of resistance (LOR) for epidural catheter placement has been utilized for almost a century. LOR is a subjective endpoint associated with a high failure rate. Nerve stimulation (NS) has been described as an objective method for confirming placement of an epidural catheter. We hypothesized that the addition of NS to LOR would improve the success of epidural catheter placement. METHODS: One-hundred patients were randomized to thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA) utilizing LOR-alone or loss of resistance plus nerve stimulation (LOR + NS). The primary endpoint was rate of success, defined as loss of sensation following test dose. Secondary endpoints included performance time. An intention-to-treat analysis was planned, but a per-protocol analysis was performed to investigate the success rate when stimulation was achieved. RESULTS: In the intention-to-treat analysis there was no difference in success rates (90% vs 82% [LOR + NS vs LOR-alone]; P = 0.39). The procedural time increased in the LOR + NS group (33.9 ± 12.8 vs 24.0 ± 8.0 min; P < 0.001). The per-protocol analysis found a statistically higher success rate for the LOR + NS group compared to the LOR-alone group (98% vs. 82%; P = 0.017) when only patients in whom stimulation was achieved were included. CONCLUSIONS: Addition of NS technique did not statistically improve the success rate for epidural placement when analyzed in an intention-to-treat format and was associated with a longer procedural time. In a per-protocol analysis a statistically higher success rate for patients in whom stimulation was obtained highlights the potential benefit of adding NS to LOR. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT03087604 on 3/22/2017; Institutional Review Board Wake Forest School of Medicine IRB00039522, Food and Drug Administration Investigational Device Exemption: G160273.

Rupture of an epidural filter connector during bolus administration of local anesthetic: a case report.

BACKGROUND: Epidural catheters are routinely placed for many surgical procedures and to treat various pain conditions. Known complications arising from epidural catheter equipment malfunction include epidural pump failure, epidural catheter shearing, epidural catheter connector failure, epidural filter connector cracking, and loss-of-resistance syringe malfunction. Practitioners need to be aware of these potentially dangerous complications and take measures to mitigate the chances of causing significant patient harm. We report on the complete breakage of an epidural filter connector during epidural bolus administration of local anesthetic by hand with a syringe. CASE PRESENTATION: A B. Braun Perifix® epidural catheter was placed in a 73-year-old male scheduled for radical prostatectomy. During the operation, a continuous infusion of local anesthetic was administered through the epidural catheter in addition to general endotracheal anesthesia. At the conclusion of surgery and after extubation, the patient endorsed incisional pain. The epidural filter connector broke in half as a bolus of local anesthetic was administered by hand with a syringe. The local anesthetic sprayed widely throughout the room as the fragmented epidural filter connector became a projectile object that recoiled and struck the patient. CONCLUSIONS: This incident placed the patient and surrounding healthcare providers at substantial risk for injury and infection from the fractured epidural filter connector becoming a projectile object and from the local anesthetic spray. The most plausible cause of this event was from a large amount of pressure being applied to the filter connector. This may have occurred by excessive force being applied by hand to the syringe, by the presence of a clogged filter, or by the catheter being kinked or blocked proximal to the filter. Being aware of this deleterious complication and potentially modifying existing epidural bolus techniques, such as using smaller syringes with less applied force and checking all epidural components vigilantly prior to and during bolus administration, can help anesthesia providers deliver the safest possible care to patients with epidural catheters.

Difficulty in Advancing Flexible Epidural Catheters When Establishing Labor Analgesia: An Observational Open-Label Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: While flexible epidural catheters reduce the risk of paresthesia and intravascular cannulation, they may be more challenging to advance beyond the tip of a Tuohy needle. This may increase placement time, number of attempts, and possibly complications when establishing labor analgesia. This study investigated the ability to advance flexible epidural catheters through different epidural needles from 2 commonly used, commercially available, epidural kits. METHODS: We hypothesized that the multiorifice wire-reinforced polyamide nylon blend epidural catheters will have a higher rate of successful first attempt insertion than the single-end hole wire-reinforced polyurethane catheters for the establishment of labor analgesia. The primary outcome was a difference in proportions of failure to advance the epidural catheter between the 2 epidural kits and was tested by a χ2 test. Two-hundred forty epidural kits were collected (n = 120/group) for 240 laboring patients requesting epidural analgesia in this open-label clinical trial from November 2018 to September 2019. Two-week time intervals were randomized for the exclusive use of 1 of the 2 kits in this study, where all patients received labor analgesia through either the flexible epidural catheter "A" or the flexible epidural catheter "B." Engineering properties of the equipment used were then determined. RESULTS: Flexible epidural catheter "A," the single-end hole wire-reinforced polyurethane catheter, did not advance at the first attempt in 15% (n = 18 of 120) of the parturients compared to 0.8% (n = 1 of 120) of the catheter "B," the multiorifice wire-reinforced polyamide nylon blend epidural catheter (P < .0001). Twenty-five additional epidural needle manipulations were recorded in the laboring patients who received catheter "A," while 1 epidural needle manipulation was recorded in the parturients who received catheter "B" (P < .0001). Bending stiffness of the epidural catheters used from kit "B" was twice the bending stiffness of the catheters used from kit "A" (bending stiffness catheters "A" 0.64 ± 0.04 N·mm2 versus bending stiffness catheters "B" 1.28 ± 0.20 N·mm2, P = .0038), and the angle formed by the needle and the epidural catheter from kit "A" was less acute than the angle formed from kit "B" (kit "A" 14.17 ± 1.72° versus kit "B" 21.83 ± 1.33°, P = .0036), with a mean difference of 7.66° between the 2 kits' angles. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of an inability to advance single-end hole wire-reinforced polyurethane catheter was higher compared to the use of multiorifice wire-reinforced polyamide nylon blend epidural catheter. Variation of morphological features of epidural needles and catheters may play a critical role in determining the successful establishment of labor epidural analgesia.

Intrathecal catheter use after accidental dural puncture in obstetric patients: literature review and clinical management recommendations.

If an accidental dural puncture occurs, one option is to insert a catheter and use it as an intrathecal catheter. This avoids the need for a further injection and can rapidly provide labour analgesia and anaesthesia for caesarean section. However, there are no recommendations for managing intrathecal catheters and, therefore, significant variation in clinical practice exists. Mismanagement of the intrathecal catheter can lead to increased motor block, high spinal anaesthesia, drug error, hypotension and fetal bradycardia. Care must be taken with an intrathecal catheter to adhere to strict aseptic technique, meticulous labelling, cautious administration of medications and good communication with the patient and other staff. Every institution considering the use of intrathecal catheters should establish a protocol. For labour analgesia, we recommend the use of dilute local anaesthetic agents and opioids. For caesarean section anaesthesia, gradual titration to the level of the fourth thoracic dermatome, with full monitoring, in a facility equipped to manage complications, should be performed using local anaesthetics combined with lipophilic opioids and morphine or diamorphine. Although evidence of the presence and duration of intrathecal catheters on the development of post-dural puncture headache and need for epidural blood patch is limited, we suggest considering leaving the intrathecal catheter in for 24 hours to reduce the chance of developing a post-dural puncture headache while maintaining precautions to avoid drug error and cerebrospinal fluid leakage. Injection of sterile normal saline into the intrathecal catheter may reduce post-dural puncture headache. The level of evidence for these recommendations was low.

Epidural Versus Transabdominal Wall Catheters: A Comparative Study of Outcomes After Pancreatic Resection.

BACKGROUND: This study compared epidural analgesia with local anesthetic administration via transabdominal wall catheters (TAWC), to determine the effect on perioperative outcomes in pancreatic surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review of patients undergoing open pancreatic surgery at Auckland City Hospital from 2015 to 2018 was undertaken. Data collected included patient demographics, type of perioperative analgesia, intravenous fluid and vasopressor use, length of high dependency unit stay, postoperative complications, and length of hospital stay. RESULTS: Seventy-two patients underwent pancreatic surgery, of which 47 had epidural analgesia and 25 TAWC. The median age was 64 y (range 29-85). Failure of analgesia method occurred in 45% of epidural patients and 28% of TAWC patients (P = 0.209). There was no significant difference in volume of intravenous fluid given or need for vasopressors in the first 3 postoperative days, length of high dependency unit stay (median 1 d, P = 0.2836), rates of postoperative pancreatic fistula (32% versus 40%, P = 0.6046), postoperative complications (38% versus 20%, P = 0.183), or mortality (0.04% versus 0.04%, P = 1.0). CONCLUSIONS: Epidural analgesia and TAWC may have comparable perioperative outcomes in patients undergoing pancreatic surgery. Further randomized studies with a larger cohort of patients are warranted to identify the best postoperative analgesic method in patients undergoing pancreatic resection.

Successful utilisation of epidural analgesia for perioperative pain management in a child with sodium voltage-gated channel alpha subunit (SCN1A) gene mutation.

Sodium voltage-gated channel alpha subunit (SCN1A) gene mutation is a rare disorder with a large spectrum of clinical presentations. Little is known regarding anaesthetic and analgesic management of these patients. We present a case of a child with SCN1A gene mutation that was successfully managed with an epidural for perioperative analgesia for an abdominal surgery.

Use of a novel non-invasive respiratory monitor to study changes in pulmonary ventilation during labor epidural analgesia.

Measuring continuous changes in maternal ventilation during labor neuraxial analgesia is technically difficult. Consequently, the magnitude of pulmonary minute ventilation (MV) alterations following labor analgesia remains unknown. We hypothesized that a novel, bio-impedance based non-invasive respiratory monitor would provide this information. Furthermore, we sought to determine if an association between changes in MV and maternal temperature existed. Following calibration with a Haloscale Standard Wright Respirometer, the ExSpiron respiratory volume monitor (RVM) measured MV, respiratory rate (RR), and tidal volume (TV) in 41 term parturients receiving epidural analgesia. Simultaneously, maternal oral temperatures were recorded at pre-specified hourly intervals after epidural analgesia initiation until delivery. Cumulative MV changes were calculated as the integral of MV change over time: MV [Formula: see text], where T represents the time between epidural placement and variable measurement. The association between changes in MV and cumulative MV versus maternal temperature was determined by comparing patients whose temperature did or did not increase by ≥ 0.5 °C. After initiation of epidural analgesia, MV decreased by 11.1 ± 27.6% [mean ± SD] at 30 min, p = 0.006, and 19.8 ± 26.1% at 2 h compared to baseline (12.6 ± 7.3 L/min at baseline vs. 15.3 ± 6.3 L/min at 2 h, p < 0.001), Minute ventilation remained decreased at 4 h by 14.3 ± 31.4% (p = 0.013). The cumulative MV also decreased by 437 ± 852 L [mean ± SD], p = 0.009) at 2 h and by 795 ± 1431 L, p < 0.001) at 4 h following epidural analgesia initiation, compared to baseline. The association between changes in cumulative MV and maternal temperature following epidural placement was weak (R < 0.3); however, a decrease in MV at 30 min (p = 0.002) and cumulative MV at 2 h (p = 0.012) was observed in women whose temperature increased by at least 0.5 °C during labor. Our findings suggest that RVM can be a useful noninvasive technology to investigate pulmonary physiology during labor. The association between maternal MV and temperature change during labor analgesia deserves further investigation.Trial Registrationwww.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02339389).

Comparison of Programmed Intermittent Epidural Boluses With Continuous Epidural Infusion for the Maintenance of Labor Analgesia: A Randomized, Controlled, Double-Blind Study.

BACKGROUND: Programmed intermittent epidural boluses may improve the spread of local anesthetics compared to continuous epidural infusion, improving labor analgesia and obstetric outcomes. However, there are limited data from studies using commercially available pumps capable of coadministering programmed intermittent epidural boluses or continuous epidural infusion with patient-controlled epidural analgesia. Therefore, we performed this prospective, randomized, double-blind study to compare the impact of programmed intermittent epidural boluses versus continuous epidural infusion on labor analgesia and maternal/neonatal outcomes. We hypothesized that programmed intermittent epidural boluses will result in lower patient-controlled epidural analgesia consumption compared to that with continuous epidural infusion. METHODS: Following standardized initiation of epidural labor analgesia, women were randomized to receive 0.1% ropivacaine with 2 µg/mL fentanyl as 6-mL programmed intermittent epidural boluses every 45 minutes or continuous epidural infusion at 8 mL/h in a double-blind fashion with similar patient-controlled epidural analgesia settings in both groups. The primary outcome was patient-controlled epidural analgesia consumption per hour. Secondary outcomes included a need for physician interventions, patterns of patient-controlled epidural analgesia use, motor blockade, number of patients who developed hypotension, pain scores, duration of second stage of labor, mode of delivery, and maternal satisfaction. RESULTS: We included 120 patients (61 in programmed intermittent epidural boluses group and 59 in continuous epidural infusion group) in the analysis. The median (interquartile range) patient-controlled epidural analgesia volume consumed per hour was not significantly different between the groups: 4.5 mL/h (3.0-8.6 mL/h) for the continuous epidural infusion group and 4.0 mL/h (2.2-7.1 mL/h) for the programmed intermittent epidural boluses group (P = .17). The Hodges-Lehmann location shift estimate of the difference (95% CI) from the continuous epidural infusion to the programmed intermittent epidural boluses group is 0.9 mL/h (-0.4 to 2.2 mL/h). There were also no significant differences between the groups in any of the secondary outcomes except for higher median (interquartile range) patient-controlled epidural analgesia attempts per given ratio per hour in the programmed intermittent epidural bolus group (0.17 [0.10-0.30] vs 0.12 [0.08-0.18]; P = .03) and more motor block in the continuous epidural infusion group (those with Bromage score <5, 27.5% vs 50.0%; P = .03). CONCLUSIONS: Under the conditions of our study, we did not find improved outcomes with programmed intermittent epidural boluses compared to continuous epidural infusion except for less motor block with programmed intermittent epidural boluses. Future studies should assess whether smaller but clinically important differences exist and evaluate different parameters of programmed intermittent epidural boluses to optimize analgesia and outcomes with this mode of analgesia.

Do Epidural Catheter Size and Flow Rate Affect Bolus Injection Pressure in Different Programmed Intermittent Epidural Bolus Regimens? An In Vitro Study.

BACKGROUND: The optimal programmed intermittent epidural bolus regimen for labor analgesia remains unknown. Some studies indicate that better drug spread in the epidural space results from greater injection pressure; however, there is a lack of data regarding the maximum pressure generated by epidural bolus injection using different catheters and flow rates. METHODS: We evaluated the flow and pressure characteristics of 11 commonly used epidural catheters combined with 3 different infusion pumps that deliver epidural infusions according to the programmed intermittent epidural bolus regimen. Pressure changes were measured over time at flow rates of 100, 250, and 400 mL·hour and with a bolus volume of 10 mL. To account for repeated measures, linear mixed models were used. Features were selected with a backward stepwise procedure continued until only statistically significant variables were left in the model. RESULTS: We performed 660 measurements. The mean maximal pressure generated during bolus injection ranged from 86 to 863 mm Hg for different flow rates and catheter designs. The interaction between flow rate and catheter gauge resulted in 1.31, 1.65, and 2.00 mm Hg of pressure increase for 18G, 19G, and 20G catheters, respectively, per 1 mL·hour of increased flow rate (P< .001). Analyses including wire-reinforced catheters revealed a 1.16, 1.76, and 2.36 mm Hg pressure increase for 18G, 19G, and 20G catheters, respectively, per 1 mL·hour of increased flow rate (P< .001). In some cases, it triggered the occlusion pump alarm. CONCLUSIONS: Significant differences were observed in the in vitro maximum pressure value among the various catheter and flow rate combinations with a higher pressure value for wire-reinforced catheters used in the study. The optimal flow rate and epidural catheter combination may allow for delivery of the bolus with high flow rate without triggering the occlusion alarm.

Intrapartum epidural catheter displacement: Comparison of three dressing methods (Migración de catéter epidural intraparto: Comparación de tres métodos de fijación).

AIM: To compare the effect on epidural catheter migration of three different types of dressing used in labor. INTRODUCTION: Failure of labor epidural is due to multiple factors including catheter migration. Epidural catheter migration has been showed to be related to body mass index and patient position. The dressing technique also influences catheter migration and the risk of epidural failure. METHODS: Patients were randomly allocated to one of three groups based on type of dressing of labor epidural: TegadermTM (Group T), TegadermTM with sticky pad (Group P), and TegadermTM with Steri-StripTM (Group S). Measured variables included parity, gestational age, body mass index (BMI), level of puncture and distance of epidural catheter migration. RESULTS: There was an overall difference in epidural catheter migration (ECM) distance among different groups (p<0.05). Pairwise comparison revealed only a significant difference between groups P and T (0.76±1.35 vs. -0.14±1.03, p<0.01). CONCLUSION: Taping the lumbar epidural catheter used for labor analgesia with TegadermTM is inferior to TegadermTM with sticky pad or with Steri-StripTM in terms of catheter migration. There is no association of catheter migration and BMI.

Objetivo: Comparar el efecto de tres diferentes tipos de fijación sobre la migración del catéter epidural durante el trabajo de parto. Introducción: El fallo del bloqueo epidural en el trabajo de parto se debe a múltiples factores incluyendo la migración de catéter. La migración de catéter epidural se ha relacionado con el índice de masa corporal y la posición, así como con movimientos del paciente. La técnica de fijación también afecta la migración de catéter y el riesgo de bloqueo epidural fallido. Método: Las pacientes fueron aleatorizadas y asignadas a uno de tres grupos según el tipo de fijación: TegadermTM (Grupo T), TegadermTM con almohadilla adhesiva (Grupo P) y Tegaderm TM con Steri-StripTM (Grupo S). Las variables evaluadas incluyeron paridad, edad gestacional, índice de masa corporal (IMC), nivel de punción y distancia de migración del catéter epidural. Resultados: Se detectó una diferencia en la distancia de migración de catéter epidural entre los diferentes grupos (p<0.05). La comparación reveló diferencia únicamente entre los grupos P y T (0.76±1.35 vs. -0.14±1.03, p<0.01). Conclusión: TegadermTM como método de fijación de catéter epidural en el trabajo de parto resultó ser inferior al TegadermTM con almohadilla adhesiva o con Steri-StripTM en términos de migración de catéter. No existe una asociación entre migración de catéter epidural e IMC.

Reducing breakthrough pain during labour epidural analgesia: an update.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Neuraxial techniques are the current gold standard for labour analgesia, but are associated with up to 25% incidence of breakthrough pain. In this review, we aim to update clinicians on the latest research pertaining to the optimization of neuraxial labour analgesia. RECENT FINDINGS: Attempts to improve the efficacy and reliability of epidural analgesia while minimizing adverse effects have resulted in the rising popularity of combined spinal epidural and the dural puncture epidural (DPE). Recent studies have focused on determining the safety, efficacy, and optimization of the DPE technique.Another research focus is on the development of individualized therapy in which patients may titrate their own labour analgesia according to their varying requirements, possibly augmented with computer-aided feedback systems and automated mandatory bolus techniques that automatically adjust drug delivery to the patients' analgesic requirements. The addition of a risk-stratification model based on maternal, anaesthetic, and obstetric factors will facilitate early institution of individualized therapy to forestall breakthrough pain in higher risk patients. SUMMARY: Recent advances in combined spinal epidural, DPE, automated mandatory bolus, and individualized therapies have advanced our goal of providing effective labour analgesia that is titrated to changing analgesic requirements during labour and delivery and reducing breakthrough pain.

Randomized comparison of two methods of the epidural space identification during regional labour analgesia.

OBJECTIVES: Conventional loss of resistance (LOR) technique for identifying the epidural space (EDS) predominantly depends on experience of the anaesthetist. A technique using automated syringe for EDS identification was invented as an alternative to the traditional method. The aim of the study was to compare the efficacy and risk for complications between automatic LOR syringe - Epimatic® (Vygon, Ecouen, France) and conventional LOR - Perifix® (B.Braun Melsungen AG, Melsungen, Germany) techniques for EDS identification. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 170 patients were enrolled into the study and 153 cases were analysed. Number of at- tempts, time to EDS identification, ease of EDS identification, complication rate and patient procedure-related discomfort were evaluated and compared. RESULTS: No statistically significant differences were found in the number of needle insertion attempts (1.3 in both groups), time to EDS identification (31 sec. vs. 27 sec.), efficacy of epidural analgesia (100% in both groups), or complication rate between both groups. CONCLUSIONS: The automatic and the conventional LOR techniques are comparable in terms of efficacy and safety for the epidural space identification.

Epidural test dose in obstetric patients: should we still use it?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: As the application of a test dose after epidural catheter insertion in obstetrics has recurrently been associated with serious adverse events affecting both maternal and foetal outcomes, the question whether to test or not remains a controversial issue. RECENT FINDINGS: Present guidelines do not provide clear recommendations in this regard and several recent surveys indicate a heterogeneity in clinical routine. SUMMARY: Physiological alterations during pregnancy and labour restrict the use and also the validity of traditional test agents. Epinephrine is not appropriate to detect a vascular insertion in labour and the application of a local anaesthetic test dose may lead to dose-dependent fatal consequences should the catheter be intrathecal, due to an increased sensitivity in parturients. Given the current practice of opioid-amended-low-concentration epidurals, the waiving of a test dose results at worst in a failed epidural, a stark contrast to the potentially severe to fatal complications of a 'traditional' test dose. Hence, an originally preventive measure providing potentially more harm than the consequences of the situation aimed to prevent, should not be recommended. A simple fractionated administration of the initial analgesic dose seems reasonable though.

Electric stimulation-guided epidural analgesia for vaginal delivery: A randomized prospective study.

BACKGROUND: The failure rate of epidural anesthesia using the loss of resistance technique is 13-23%. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the efficacy of epidural electric stimulation-guided epidural analgesia in vaginal delivery. STUDY DESIGN: An open label randomized prospective study. METHODS: Laboring women were randomized to two groups: epidural catheter insertion using only a loss of resistance technique or a loss of resistance technique with confirmation by electric stimulation. Catheters in both groups were initially tested with 3 ml of 1% lidocaine and those with any evidence of motor blockade were considered intrathecal. Sensory blockade and an 11 point numerical rating score for pain were assessed 30 minutes after administration of an epidural bolus of 10 ml of 0.22% ropivacaine with fentanyl. Successful epidural analgesia was defined as a decrease of 2 or more in the pain score and a bilateral L1-T10 sensory blockade. RESULTS: Thirty-one patients were randomized to each group. The first 20 patients in each group were enrolled in a pilot study and were also included in the final analysis. One patient in the electric stimulation group was excluded owing to dural puncture by the Tuohy needle. One patient in each group demonstrated motor blockade after test dose and were considered failures. The number (% (95% confidence interval)) of successful cases were 29 out of 30 (97% (85, 100%)) in the electric stimulation group and 24 out of 31 (77% (61, 89%)) in the loss of resistance group (P = 0.053). However, analysis of only patients with absence of motor blockade revealed that 29 out of 29 (100% (92, 100%)) patients in the electric stimulation group and 24 of 29 (80% (63, 91%)) patients in the loss of resistance group had adequate analgesia (P = 0.024). CONCLUSIONS: Although limited by lack of blinding, small study size and inclusion of pilot study data, this study suggests epidural electric stimulation improves the success rate of subsequent labor analgesia.

Ultrasound guided L5-S1 placement of labor epidural does not improve dermatomal block in parturients.

BACKGROUND: Based on their experience or training, anesthesiologists typically use the iliac crest as a landmark to choose the L3-4 or L2-3 interspace for labor epidural catheter placement. There is no evidence-based recommendation to guide the exact placement. We hypothesized that lower placement of the catheter would lead to a higher incidence of S2 dermatomal block and improved analgesia in late labor and at delivery. METHODS: One-hundred parturients requesting epidural analgesia were randomly assigned to receive ultrasound-guided L5-S1 epidural catheter placement (experimental group) or non-ultrasound-guided higher lumbar interspace placement (control group). The primary outcome was the incidence of S2 block 30 minutes after administering 10 mL 0.125% bupivacaine. Secondary outcomes were average pain throughout labor and maximum pain during labor or during delivery. RESULTS: Forty-nine subjects were enrolled in control group and 47 in the experimental group. The primary endpoint did not significantly differ between groups (control group 81% vs experimental group 91%, P=0.24). The secondary endpoints were not significantly different: pain relief after 30 minutes (mean pain score 1.4 in the control group vs 1.9 in the experimental group, P=0.2) and pain at delivery (mean score 4 in the control group vs 3.9 in the experimental group, P=0.6). CONCLUSION: Placement of an epidural catheter at the L5-S1 interspace using ultrasound did not improve sacral sensory block coverage when compared with an epidural catheter placed at a higher lumbar interspace, without using ultrasound guidance.

Color your epidural: color flow Doppler to confirm labor epidural needle position.

BACKGROUND: Labor epidural analgesia success depends on precise needle position placement within the epidural space, with reported failure rates to be as high as 32%. In this study, we describe a novel technique employing color Doppler to aid in the confirmation of the correct position of the epidural needle tip. METHODS: Retrospective evaluation of 35 patients who received labor combined spinal-epidural (CSE) with confirmation of epidural needle position with color flow Doppler (CFD) ultrasonography. Demographic data, intervertebral level of insertion and dermatome sensory level were extracted. Video and image evaluation of CFD patterns were used to confirm epidural needle tip and catheter position. CFD was used to visualize intrathecal injection of local anesthetic in two patients. RESULTS: Three different color flow patterns were visualized after the loss of resistance technique: visualization of a red and blue mosaic adjacent to the posterior complex, a mosaic pattern enveloping the trajectory of the epidural needle, and a linear deeper mosaic color pattern during spinal injection in relation to the posterior complex. Identification of epidural needle tip and epidural catheter tip occurred in 77% and 37.1% of patients, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: CFD is a novel and useful technique to confirm the precise position of the epidural needle tip in the context of labor analgesia. Identification of the epidural catheter with CFD is difficult despite an adequate CSE technique.