脊髓圆锥创伤:产妇是否有更大的风险?

Q2 Medicine
Julie Verkooijen, Hilde Coppejans, Els Mertens, Vera Saldien, Marcel Vercauteren
{"title":"脊髓圆锥创伤:产妇是否有更大的风险?","authors":"Julie Verkooijen,&nbsp;Hilde Coppejans,&nbsp;Els Mertens,&nbsp;Vera Saldien,&nbsp;Marcel Vercauteren","doi":"10.21454/rjaic.7518.242.ver","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>There is some evidence that anaesthetists often perform neuraxial blocks at a higher lumbar interspace than intended. It may be questioned whether parturients are at greater risk for neurological damage when the dura is perforated at a more cephalad interspace than L2-L3.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Thirty-six patients scheduled for elective Caesarean delivery under CSE anaesthesia were selected for study. Using a B-D Durasafe Adjustable needle combination, the skin-to-epidural distance and the width of the epidural space were measured and matched with 36 female patients undergoing the same anaesthetic technique for orthopaedic procedures.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Pregnant patients had a higher bodyweight (77 vs. 67 kg, p = 0.007) than those scheduled for orthopaedic surgery. The skin-to-epidural distance was similar in both groups (5.3 vs. 5.1 cm, p = 0.3). The width of the epidural space was 1.1 mm larger in parturients (8.2 vs. 7.1 mm, p = 0.04). More patients in this group had tip-to-tip distances exceeding 10 mm (25 vs. 12%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The greater epidural space or tip-to-tip distance between the epidural and spinal needle points in term parturients results in a lower margin of safety with respect to the distance from the dura to spinal cord or conus medullaris. Puncturing the correct interspace is, therefore, of crucial importance in pregnant patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":21279,"journal":{"name":"Romanian journal of anaesthesia and intensive care","volume":"24 2","pages":"107-110"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.21454/rjaic.7518.242.ver","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Conus medullaris trauma: is there a greater risk in parturients?\",\"authors\":\"Julie Verkooijen,&nbsp;Hilde Coppejans,&nbsp;Els Mertens,&nbsp;Vera Saldien,&nbsp;Marcel Vercauteren\",\"doi\":\"10.21454/rjaic.7518.242.ver\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>There is some evidence that anaesthetists often perform neuraxial blocks at a higher lumbar interspace than intended. It may be questioned whether parturients are at greater risk for neurological damage when the dura is perforated at a more cephalad interspace than L2-L3.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Thirty-six patients scheduled for elective Caesarean delivery under CSE anaesthesia were selected for study. Using a B-D Durasafe Adjustable needle combination, the skin-to-epidural distance and the width of the epidural space were measured and matched with 36 female patients undergoing the same anaesthetic technique for orthopaedic procedures.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Pregnant patients had a higher bodyweight (77 vs. 67 kg, p = 0.007) than those scheduled for orthopaedic surgery. The skin-to-epidural distance was similar in both groups (5.3 vs. 5.1 cm, p = 0.3). The width of the epidural space was 1.1 mm larger in parturients (8.2 vs. 7.1 mm, p = 0.04). More patients in this group had tip-to-tip distances exceeding 10 mm (25 vs. 12%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The greater epidural space or tip-to-tip distance between the epidural and spinal needle points in term parturients results in a lower margin of safety with respect to the distance from the dura to spinal cord or conus medullaris. Puncturing the correct interspace is, therefore, of crucial importance in pregnant patients.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":21279,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Romanian journal of anaesthesia and intensive care\",\"volume\":\"24 2\",\"pages\":\"107-110\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.21454/rjaic.7518.242.ver\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Romanian journal of anaesthesia and intensive care\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.21454/rjaic.7518.242.ver\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Romanian journal of anaesthesia and intensive care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21454/rjaic.7518.242.ver","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:有证据表明麻醉师经常在比预期更高的腰椎间隙处实施神经轴阻滞。当硬脑膜在更靠近头部的间隙穿孔时,是否比在L2-L3间隙穿孔时,产妇发生神经损伤的风险更大?方法:选择36例CSE麻醉下择期剖宫产患者作为研究对象。使用B-D Durasafe可调针组合,测量36例接受相同麻醉技术的女性矫形手术患者的皮肤到硬膜外距离和硬膜外间隙宽度。结果:妊娠期患者体重(77 vs. 67 kg, p = 0.007)高于拟行骨科手术的患者。两组皮肤到硬膜外的距离相似(5.3 vs 5.1 cm, p = 0.3)。产妇的硬膜外腔宽度大1.1 mm (8.2 vs. 7.1 mm, p = 0.04)。该组中更多的患者尖端到尖端的距离超过10毫米(25比12%)。结论:足月产妇的硬膜外间隙较大或硬膜外针头与脊髓针尖之间的距离较远,导致硬膜到脊髓或髓圆锥的距离较低的安全边际。因此,穿刺正确的间隙对孕妇至关重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Conus medullaris trauma: is there a greater risk in parturients?

Background: There is some evidence that anaesthetists often perform neuraxial blocks at a higher lumbar interspace than intended. It may be questioned whether parturients are at greater risk for neurological damage when the dura is perforated at a more cephalad interspace than L2-L3.

Methods: Thirty-six patients scheduled for elective Caesarean delivery under CSE anaesthesia were selected for study. Using a B-D Durasafe Adjustable needle combination, the skin-to-epidural distance and the width of the epidural space were measured and matched with 36 female patients undergoing the same anaesthetic technique for orthopaedic procedures.

Results: Pregnant patients had a higher bodyweight (77 vs. 67 kg, p = 0.007) than those scheduled for orthopaedic surgery. The skin-to-epidural distance was similar in both groups (5.3 vs. 5.1 cm, p = 0.3). The width of the epidural space was 1.1 mm larger in parturients (8.2 vs. 7.1 mm, p = 0.04). More patients in this group had tip-to-tip distances exceeding 10 mm (25 vs. 12%).

Conclusion: The greater epidural space or tip-to-tip distance between the epidural and spinal needle points in term parturients results in a lower margin of safety with respect to the distance from the dura to spinal cord or conus medullaris. Puncturing the correct interspace is, therefore, of crucial importance in pregnant patients.

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
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: The Romanian Journal of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care is the official journal of the Romanian Society of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care and has been published continuously since 1994. It is intended mainly for anaesthesia and intensive care providers, but it is also aimed at specialists in emergency medical care and in pain research and management. The Journal is indexed in Scopus, Embase, PubMed Central as well as the databases of the Romanian Ministry of Education and Research (CNCSIS) B+ category. The Journal publishes two issues per year, the first one in April and the second one in October, and contains original articles, reviews, case reports, letters to the editor, book reviews and commentaries. The Journal is distributed free of charge to the members of the Romanian Society of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care.
×
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