Techniques for identifying the epidural space: A survey of practice amongst anaesthetists in the UK

62Citations
Citations of this article
49Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

A postal survey of all UK members of the Obstetric Anaesthetists' Association was carried out to ascertain their preferred method for identifying the epidural space in obstetric and non-obstetric patients. Over 1200 questionnaires were returned (79.3% response rate). In obstetric patients, the single most common technique (used by 58% of anaesthetists) was continuous advancement of the epidural needle and loss of resistance with saline, followed by intermittent needle advancement with air (21%). A minority of respondents used other variants, including intermittent advancement with saline (16%) and continuous advancement with air (4%). Consultant anaesthetists showed greater variety in techniques used than did trainees (p < 0.001). Less than 5% of respondents used a paramedian approach, and these were almost exclusively senior staff. Only 48% of anaesthetists said they would try an alternative if they experienced difficulty with their preferred technique. A similar pattern was seen for lumbar epidurals in non-obstetric surgical patients (89% used the same technique as in obstetrics), although for thoracic epidurals, 23% used a different technique to that which they would use for obstetrics, and the paramedian approach was more popular (21%). When inserting lumbar epidurals to supplement general anaesthesia in surgical patients, 18% of anaesthetists said they usually performed the block with the patient asleep, whereas for thoracic epidurals, this figure fell to 14%. © 2006 The Authors Journal compilation 2006 The Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Wantman, A., Hancox, N., & Howell, P. R. (2006). Techniques for identifying the epidural space: A survey of practice amongst anaesthetists in the UK. Anaesthesia, 61(4), 370–375. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2044.2006.04534.x

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free