Treatment of Refractory Postdural Puncture Headache after Intrathecal Drug Delivery System Implantation with Epidural Blood Patch Procedures: A 20-Year Experience.

Q2 Medicine
Pain Research and Treatment Pub Date : 2016-01-01 Epub Date: 2016-08-11 DOI:10.1155/2016/2134959
Markus A Bendel, Susan M Moeschler, Wenchun Qu, Eugerie Hanley, Stephanie A Neuman, Jason S Eldrige, Bryan C Hoelzer
{"title":"Treatment of Refractory Postdural Puncture Headache after Intrathecal Drug Delivery System Implantation with Epidural Blood Patch Procedures: A 20-Year Experience.","authors":"Markus A Bendel,&nbsp;Susan M Moeschler,&nbsp;Wenchun Qu,&nbsp;Eugerie Hanley,&nbsp;Stephanie A Neuman,&nbsp;Jason S Eldrige,&nbsp;Bryan C Hoelzer","doi":"10.1155/2016/2134959","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>A recent publication reported the incidence of postdural puncture headache (PDPH) in conjunction with intrathecal drug delivery system (IDDS) implantation to be nearly 23 percent. Many patients responded to conservative measures but a percentage needed invasive treatment with an epidural blood patch (EBP). There is limited data to describe the technical details, success rates, and complications associated with EBP in this population. This study aims to provide a retrospective report of EBP for patients suffering from PDPH related to IDDS implantation. A chart review established a cohort of patients that required EBP in relation to a PDPH after IDDS implantation. This cohort was evaluated for demographic data as well as details of the EBP including technical procedural data, success rates, and complications. All patients received a trial of conservative therapy. Standard sterile technique and skin preparation were utilized with no infectious complications. The EBP was placed below the level of the IDDS catheter in 94% of procedures. Fluoroscopy was utilized in each case. The mean EBP volume was 18.6 cc and median time of EBP was day 7 after implant. There were no complications associated with EBP. EBP appears to be an effective intervention in this subset of PDPH patients. </p>","PeriodicalId":19786,"journal":{"name":"Pain Research and Treatment","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1155/2016/2134959","citationCount":"13","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pain Research and Treatment","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/2134959","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2016/8/11 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 13

Abstract

A recent publication reported the incidence of postdural puncture headache (PDPH) in conjunction with intrathecal drug delivery system (IDDS) implantation to be nearly 23 percent. Many patients responded to conservative measures but a percentage needed invasive treatment with an epidural blood patch (EBP). There is limited data to describe the technical details, success rates, and complications associated with EBP in this population. This study aims to provide a retrospective report of EBP for patients suffering from PDPH related to IDDS implantation. A chart review established a cohort of patients that required EBP in relation to a PDPH after IDDS implantation. This cohort was evaluated for demographic data as well as details of the EBP including technical procedural data, success rates, and complications. All patients received a trial of conservative therapy. Standard sterile technique and skin preparation were utilized with no infectious complications. The EBP was placed below the level of the IDDS catheter in 94% of procedures. Fluoroscopy was utilized in each case. The mean EBP volume was 18.6 cc and median time of EBP was day 7 after implant. There were no complications associated with EBP. EBP appears to be an effective intervention in this subset of PDPH patients.

硬膜外血液贴片治疗鞘内药物输送系统植入后顽固性硬脊膜后穿刺头痛:20年的经验。
最近的一份出版物报道,硬脊膜后穿刺头痛(PDPH)与鞘内给药系统(IDDS)植入相关的发生率接近23%。许多患者对保守措施有反应,但有一部分患者需要硬膜外血液贴片(EBP)的侵入性治疗。在这一人群中,描述EBP的技术细节、成功率和并发症的数据有限。本研究旨在回顾性报道与IDDS植入相关的PDPH患者的EBP。一项图表回顾建立了一组需要EBP与IDDS植入后PDPH相关的患者。该队列评估了人口统计数据以及EBP的细节,包括技术程序数据、成功率和并发症。所有患者均接受保守治疗。采用标准无菌技术和皮肤制备,无感染并发症。94%的手术中EBP低于IDDS导管的水平。每个病例均采用透视检查。平均EBP体积为18.6 cc,中位EBP时间为植入后第7天。无EBP相关并发症。EBP似乎是这类PDPH患者的有效干预措施。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Pain Research and Treatment
Pain Research and Treatment Medicine-Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信