UltraGUD LP——超声引导诊断LP——一项随机对照试验。传统的地标性腰椎穿刺与超声引导下的腰椎穿刺在门诊神经内科设置同样有效。

IF 2.7 3区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Frontiers in Neurology Pub Date : 2025-03-10 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.3389/fneur.2025.1521783
Vijay Renga, Charlotte A Jeffreys, Afsha Tabasum, Todd A MacKenzie
{"title":"UltraGUD LP——超声引导诊断LP——一项随机对照试验。传统的地标性腰椎穿刺与超声引导下的腰椎穿刺在门诊神经内科设置同样有效。","authors":"Vijay Renga, Charlotte A Jeffreys, Afsha Tabasum, Todd A MacKenzie","doi":"10.3389/fneur.2025.1521783","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Lumbar puncture (LP) is a fundamental procedure in neurology, yet its success is influenced by patient anatomy and provider expertise. Ultrasound guidance has been shown to improve outcomes in emergency and anesthesia settings, but its effectiveness in outpatient neurology remains unclear.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study (UltraGUD LP) aimed to compare the effectiveness of ultrasound-guided LP (US-LP) versus landmark-based LP (LM-LP) in an outpatient neurology setting, performed by a single experienced provider.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A prospective randomized controlled trial was conducted from 2017 to 2022. Patients requiring LP were randomized to either LM-LP or US-LP. Success was defined as obtaining cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) within three attempts. Secondary outcomes included procedure time, incidence of traumatic taps, and post-LP headache rates.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Both techniques had comparable success rates, with LM-LP achieving 91% and US-LP 100% (<i>p</i> > 0.05). Procedure time was significantly shorter for LM-LP (13 vs. 19 min, <i>p</i> < 0.05). The incidence of traumatic taps and post-LP headaches was similar between groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In a general outpatient neurology population, LM-LP is as effective as US-LP and requires less time. While US-LP may be beneficial for high-risk patients (e.g., obesity, prior back surgery), further studies are needed to confirm its superiority in these populations.</p>","PeriodicalId":12575,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Neurology","volume":"16 ","pages":"1521783"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11933744/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"'UltraGUD LP'-ultrasound guided diagnostic LP-a randomizedcontrolled trial. Traditional landmark based lumbar puncture is as effective as ultrasound guided lumbar puncture in outpatient neurology settings.\",\"authors\":\"Vijay Renga, Charlotte A Jeffreys, Afsha Tabasum, Todd A MacKenzie\",\"doi\":\"10.3389/fneur.2025.1521783\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Lumbar puncture (LP) is a fundamental procedure in neurology, yet its success is influenced by patient anatomy and provider expertise. Ultrasound guidance has been shown to improve outcomes in emergency and anesthesia settings, but its effectiveness in outpatient neurology remains unclear.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study (UltraGUD LP) aimed to compare the effectiveness of ultrasound-guided LP (US-LP) versus landmark-based LP (LM-LP) in an outpatient neurology setting, performed by a single experienced provider.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A prospective randomized controlled trial was conducted from 2017 to 2022. Patients requiring LP were randomized to either LM-LP or US-LP. Success was defined as obtaining cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) within three attempts. Secondary outcomes included procedure time, incidence of traumatic taps, and post-LP headache rates.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Both techniques had comparable success rates, with LM-LP achieving 91% and US-LP 100% (<i>p</i> > 0.05). Procedure time was significantly shorter for LM-LP (13 vs. 19 min, <i>p</i> < 0.05). The incidence of traumatic taps and post-LP headaches was similar between groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In a general outpatient neurology population, LM-LP is as effective as US-LP and requires less time. While US-LP may be beneficial for high-risk patients (e.g., obesity, prior back surgery), further studies are needed to confirm its superiority in these populations.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12575,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Frontiers in Neurology\",\"volume\":\"16 \",\"pages\":\"1521783\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11933744/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Frontiers in Neurology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2025.1521783\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Neurology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2025.1521783","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:腰椎穿刺(LP)是神经病学的一项基本手术,但其成功与否受患者解剖结构和提供者专业知识的影响。超声引导已被证明可以改善急诊和麻醉情况下的预后,但其在门诊神经病学中的有效性尚不清楚。目的:本研究(UltraGUD LP)旨在比较超声引导LP (US-LP)与地标性LP (LM-LP)在门诊神经病学设置中的有效性,由一位经验丰富的提供者执行。方法:2017 - 2022年进行前瞻性随机对照试验。需要LP的患者随机分为LM-LP组和US-LP组。成功的定义是在三次尝试中获得脑脊液。次要结局包括手术时间、外伤性穿刺发生率和lp后头痛发生率。结果:两种技术的成功率相当,LM-LP达到91%,US-LP达到100% (p > 0.05)。LM-LP的手术时间显著缩短(13 vs. 19 min, p )。结论:在普通门诊神经病学人群中,LM-LP与US-LP一样有效,所需时间更短。虽然US-LP可能对高危患者(如肥胖、既往背部手术)有益,但需要进一步的研究来证实其在这些人群中的优越性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
'UltraGUD LP'-ultrasound guided diagnostic LP-a randomizedcontrolled trial. Traditional landmark based lumbar puncture is as effective as ultrasound guided lumbar puncture in outpatient neurology settings.

Background: Lumbar puncture (LP) is a fundamental procedure in neurology, yet its success is influenced by patient anatomy and provider expertise. Ultrasound guidance has been shown to improve outcomes in emergency and anesthesia settings, but its effectiveness in outpatient neurology remains unclear.

Objective: This study (UltraGUD LP) aimed to compare the effectiveness of ultrasound-guided LP (US-LP) versus landmark-based LP (LM-LP) in an outpatient neurology setting, performed by a single experienced provider.

Methods: A prospective randomized controlled trial was conducted from 2017 to 2022. Patients requiring LP were randomized to either LM-LP or US-LP. Success was defined as obtaining cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) within three attempts. Secondary outcomes included procedure time, incidence of traumatic taps, and post-LP headache rates.

Results: Both techniques had comparable success rates, with LM-LP achieving 91% and US-LP 100% (p > 0.05). Procedure time was significantly shorter for LM-LP (13 vs. 19 min, p < 0.05). The incidence of traumatic taps and post-LP headaches was similar between groups.

Conclusion: In a general outpatient neurology population, LM-LP is as effective as US-LP and requires less time. While US-LP may be beneficial for high-risk patients (e.g., obesity, prior back surgery), further studies are needed to confirm its superiority in these populations.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Frontiers in Neurology
Frontiers in Neurology CLINICAL NEUROLOGYNEUROSCIENCES -NEUROSCIENCES
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
8.80%
发文量
2792
审稿时长
14 weeks
期刊介绍: The section Stroke aims to quickly and accurately publish important experimental, translational and clinical studies, and reviews that contribute to the knowledge of stroke, its causes, manifestations, diagnosis, and management.
×
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