Advanced search
Start date
Betweenand
(Reference retrieved automatically from Web of Science through information on FAPESP grant and its corresponding number as mentioned in the publication by the authors.)

Commonly-used versus less commonly-used methods in the loss of resistance technique for identification of the epidural space: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Full text
Author(s):
Carvalho, Larissa Pierri ; Agarwal, Arnav ; Kashiwagi, Flavio T. ; Correa, Ione ; Pereira, Jose Eduardo G. ; El Dib, Regina
Total Authors: 6
Document type: Review article
Source: JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ANESTHESIA; v. 38, p. 41-51, MAY 2017.
Web of Science Citations: 2
Abstract

Study objective: To summarize the efficacy of less-commonly used modern methods (e.g. epidrum, lidocaine, acoustic device, Macintosh balloon) compared to more commonly-used methods (i.e. air, saline, both) in the loss of resistance technique for identification of the epidural space. Design: A systematic review. Setting: A hospital-affiliated university. Measurements: The following databases were searched: PubMed, CENTRAL, EMBASE, and LILACS. We used the GRADE approach to rate overall certainty of the evidence. Results: Eight randomized trials including 1583 participants proved eligible. Results suggested a statistically significantly reduction in inability to locate the epidural space (RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.11, 0.77; P = 0.01; I-2 = 60%, risk difference (RD) 104/1000, moderate quality evidence), accidental intravascular catheter placement and accidental subarachnoid catheter placement (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.21, 0.59; P < 0.0001; I-2 = 0%, risk difference (RD) 108/1000, moderate quality evidence), and unblocked segments (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.18, 0.77; P = 0.008; I-2 = 0%, risk difference (RD) 56/1000, moderate quality evidence) with the use of epidrum, lidocaine, acoustic device, or modified Macintosh epidural balloon methods in comparison to air. Compared to saline, lidocaine presented higher rates of reduction in the inability to locate the epidural space (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.12, 0.82; P = 0.02; I-2 = not applicable). Conclusions: Moderate-quality evidence shows that less commonly-used modern methods such as epidrum, lidocaine and acoustic devices, are more efficacious compared to more commonly-used methods (i.e. air, saline, both) in terms of the loss of resistance technique for identification of the epidural space. These findings should be explored further in the context of the clinical practice among anaesthesiologists. (C) 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. (AU)

FAPESP's process: 13/12368-2 - Air versus saline in the loss of resistance technique for the identification of the epidural space: systematic review of randomized clinical trials
Grantee:Regina Paolucci El Dib
Support type: Regular Research Grants