{"title":"在脊髓麻醉患者中,超声引导与路标引导的疗效:一项前瞻性横断面研究","authors":"Krishnamurthy Priya, Sanjeev Kakaraddi, DeepakMukundarao Kavaraganahalli","doi":"10.4103/mgmj.mgmj_191_23","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: This research aims to assess the effectiveness and practical value of ultrasound imaging (US group) in minimizing the discomfort and potential hazards associated with spinal anesthesia compared to traditional landmark-based (LM group) approaches. Materials and Methods: In this prospective, randomized comparative investigation, 80 patients were enrolled to undergo spinal anesthesia using either the landmark-based or ultrasound-guided method, with an equal distribution of 40 patients in each respective group. The study recorded various parameters, including evaluation duration, count of needle insertion attempts, instances of redirection, duration of spinal anesthesia, overall procedure time (comprising assessment and administration of spinal anesthesia), and measurement of intrathecal space depth. Patient comfort was evaluated employing a visual analog scale (VAS). Results: Demographic characteristics, including age, gender, and body mass index, exhibited no notable differences. The overall procedure time was approximately 2–3 min for the LM group and 3–4 min for the US group, with a statistically significant difference (P < 0.0001). The initial successful needle insertion rate was considerably more critical in the US group (52.5%) than in the LM group (10%). The distance from the skin to the subarachnoid space was notably more remarkable in the US group, with a statistically significant distinction from the LM group (P = 0.034). The successful spinal needle placement rate was 77.5% in the US group, significantly surpassing the LM group’s rate of 25% (P < 0.05). Regarding patient comfort assessed using the VAS, the US group demonstrated significantly greater comfort levels than the LM group. In the US group, every patient reported a VAS score of <4, whereas only 27.5% achieved the same level of comfort in the LM group. Conclusion: Our study provides evidence supporting the utility of pre-procedural ultrasound evaluation of the subarachnoid space as an effective tool for achieving successful lumbar punctures in patients receiving spinal anesthesia. Compared to the traditional landmark technique, this approach reduces the number of attempts required while enhancing patient comfort.","PeriodicalId":52587,"journal":{"name":"MGM Journal of Medical Sciences","volume":"28 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Efficacy of spinal anesthesia—ultrasound guided versus landmark-based, in patients undergoing spinal anesthesia: a prospective cross-sectional study\",\"authors\":\"Krishnamurthy Priya, Sanjeev Kakaraddi, DeepakMukundarao Kavaraganahalli\",\"doi\":\"10.4103/mgmj.mgmj_191_23\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Objective: This research aims to assess the effectiveness and practical value of ultrasound imaging (US group) in minimizing the discomfort and potential hazards associated with spinal anesthesia compared to traditional landmark-based (LM group) approaches. Materials and Methods: In this prospective, randomized comparative investigation, 80 patients were enrolled to undergo spinal anesthesia using either the landmark-based or ultrasound-guided method, with an equal distribution of 40 patients in each respective group. The study recorded various parameters, including evaluation duration, count of needle insertion attempts, instances of redirection, duration of spinal anesthesia, overall procedure time (comprising assessment and administration of spinal anesthesia), and measurement of intrathecal space depth. Patient comfort was evaluated employing a visual analog scale (VAS). Results: Demographic characteristics, including age, gender, and body mass index, exhibited no notable differences. The overall procedure time was approximately 2–3 min for the LM group and 3–4 min for the US group, with a statistically significant difference (P < 0.0001). The initial successful needle insertion rate was considerably more critical in the US group (52.5%) than in the LM group (10%). The distance from the skin to the subarachnoid space was notably more remarkable in the US group, with a statistically significant distinction from the LM group (P = 0.034). The successful spinal needle placement rate was 77.5% in the US group, significantly surpassing the LM group’s rate of 25% (P < 0.05). Regarding patient comfort assessed using the VAS, the US group demonstrated significantly greater comfort levels than the LM group. In the US group, every patient reported a VAS score of <4, whereas only 27.5% achieved the same level of comfort in the LM group. Conclusion: Our study provides evidence supporting the utility of pre-procedural ultrasound evaluation of the subarachnoid space as an effective tool for achieving successful lumbar punctures in patients receiving spinal anesthesia. Compared to the traditional landmark technique, this approach reduces the number of attempts required while enhancing patient comfort.\",\"PeriodicalId\":52587,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"MGM Journal of Medical Sciences\",\"volume\":\"28 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"MGM Journal of Medical Sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4103/mgmj.mgmj_191_23\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"MGM Journal of Medical Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/mgmj.mgmj_191_23","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Efficacy of spinal anesthesia—ultrasound guided versus landmark-based, in patients undergoing spinal anesthesia: a prospective cross-sectional study
Objective: This research aims to assess the effectiveness and practical value of ultrasound imaging (US group) in minimizing the discomfort and potential hazards associated with spinal anesthesia compared to traditional landmark-based (LM group) approaches. Materials and Methods: In this prospective, randomized comparative investigation, 80 patients were enrolled to undergo spinal anesthesia using either the landmark-based or ultrasound-guided method, with an equal distribution of 40 patients in each respective group. The study recorded various parameters, including evaluation duration, count of needle insertion attempts, instances of redirection, duration of spinal anesthesia, overall procedure time (comprising assessment and administration of spinal anesthesia), and measurement of intrathecal space depth. Patient comfort was evaluated employing a visual analog scale (VAS). Results: Demographic characteristics, including age, gender, and body mass index, exhibited no notable differences. The overall procedure time was approximately 2–3 min for the LM group and 3–4 min for the US group, with a statistically significant difference (P < 0.0001). The initial successful needle insertion rate was considerably more critical in the US group (52.5%) than in the LM group (10%). The distance from the skin to the subarachnoid space was notably more remarkable in the US group, with a statistically significant distinction from the LM group (P = 0.034). The successful spinal needle placement rate was 77.5% in the US group, significantly surpassing the LM group’s rate of 25% (P < 0.05). Regarding patient comfort assessed using the VAS, the US group demonstrated significantly greater comfort levels than the LM group. In the US group, every patient reported a VAS score of <4, whereas only 27.5% achieved the same level of comfort in the LM group. Conclusion: Our study provides evidence supporting the utility of pre-procedural ultrasound evaluation of the subarachnoid space as an effective tool for achieving successful lumbar punctures in patients receiving spinal anesthesia. Compared to the traditional landmark technique, this approach reduces the number of attempts required while enhancing patient comfort.