Failure rate and complications associated with the use of spinal catheters for the management of inadvertent dural puncture in the parturient: a retrospective comparison with re-sited epidural catheters. (3rd May 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Tien, Michael; Peacher, Dionne F.; Franz, Amber M.; Jia, Shawn Y.; Habib, Ashraf S.
• Is Part Of: Current medical research and opinion. Volume 32:Number 5(2016:May)
• Page Start: 841
• Page End: 846
• Publication Date: 2016-05-03
• Subjects: Epidural -- inadvertent dural puncture -- post-dural puncture headache -- spinal; Clinical medicine -- Periodicals; Therapeutics -- Periodicals; 615.5
• DOI: 10.1185/03007995.2016.1146665
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0300-7995

Abstract

Abstract: Objective To report on the failure rate of spinal catheters placed following inadvertent dural puncture (IDP) compared with re-sited epidural catheters in the obstetric population. Research design and methods Patients who experienced IDP during epidural or combined spinal epidural placement with 17 or 18 gauge Tuohy needles for labor analgesia between 2003 and 2014 were identified using our post-dural puncture headache (PDPH) database. Patients were categorized into two groups: those who had spinal catheters inserted and those who had epidural catheters re-sited. Main outcome measure Failure rate associated with spinal or re-sited epidural catheters (defined as need for repeat block or alternative analgesic modality). Secondary outcomes were incidence of PDPH, need for epidural blood patch (EBP), and adverse events. Results A total of 109 patients were included in the final analysis; 79 ultimately had spinal catheters and 30 ultimately had re-sited epidural catheters. There were no differences between spinal catheters and re-sited epidural catheters in failure rate (22% vs. 13%, P = 0.33), incidence of PDPH (73% vs. 60%, P = 0.24), need for EBP (42% vs. 30%, P = 0.28), number of headache days, or maximum headache scores. There was also no difference in the rate of adverse events including high block levels, hypotension, and fetal bradycardia (9% vs. 7%, P = 1.0) between the two groups. Conclusions There were no differences in failure rates, PDPH outcomes, or adverse events between spinal catheters and re-sited epidural catheters following IDP in parturients receiving labor analgesia. Limitations of the study include its single-center retrospective non-randomized design, and the uneven number of patients in the two groups with a relatively small number in the re-sited epidural catheter group.