Literature DB >> 17606082

Predicting difficult and traumatic lumbar punctures.

Kaushal H Shah1, Daniel McGillicuddy, Jeffrey Spear, Jonathan A Edlow.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to determine if visual and tactile inspection of the spine is useful in the prediction of a difficult or traumatic lumbar puncture (LP).
DESIGN: This was a prospective, observational, cohort study conducted in the emergency department (ED) on patients who were undergoing an LP. Physicians prospectively completed a structured data form that included information about the patient, number of prior LPs performed, their assessment of the LP difficulty, and the number of needlesticks required. A "difficult" LP and a "traumatic" tap were defined a priori. Chi2, t tests, and regression were used as appropriate; an independent statistician performed the statistical analysis.
SETTING: The study was conducted at an urban university teaching hospital with an annual ED census of approximately 48,000 patients between November 1, 2002, and June 1, 2003. PATIENTS: The study population included a convenience sample of patients undergoing LP in the ED.
RESULTS: Of the 148 patients enrolled, LP was difficult in 47 (32%) patients and traumatic in 23 (16%) patients. The percentage of patients that did not have a visible spine was significantly higher in the difficult and traumatic groups (P < .05). Among patients where the physician was unable to visualize the spine, there were significantly more difficult LPs (P < .05).
CONCLUSION: It may be possible to predict which patients will have difficult or traumatic LPs before performing the procedure. Simple bedside assessments of spine visibility and palpability may assist in planning the approach to an LP in patients.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17606082     DOI: 10.1016/j.ajem.2006.11.025

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Emerg Med        ISSN: 0735-6757            Impact factor:   2.469


  6 in total

1.  Recommendations on the Use of Ultrasound Guidance for Adult Lumbar Puncture: A Position Statement of the Society of Hospital Medicine.

Authors:  Nilam J Soni; Ricardo Franco-Sadud; Ketino Kobaidze; Daniel Schnobrich; Gerard Salame; Joshua Lenchus; Venkat Kalidindi; Michael J Mader; Elizabeth K Haro; Ria Dancel; Joel Cho; Loretta Grikis; Brian P Lucas
Journal:  J Hosp Med       Date:  2019-06-10       Impact factor: 2.960

2.  Can physicians prevent post-lumbar puncture headache or intracranial hypotension?

Authors:  Sevim Şahin
Journal:  J Neurosci Rural Pract       Date:  2015 Apr-Jun

3.  Anatomical predicting factors of difficult spinal anesthesia in patients undergoing cesarean section: An observational study.

Authors:  Simin Atashkhoei; Saeed Samudi; Naghi Abedini; Nahid Khoshmaram; Masoumeh Minayi
Journal:  Pak J Med Sci       Date:  2019 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 1.088

4.  Impact of Obesity on Lumbar Puncture Outcomes in Adults with Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia and Lymphoma: Experience at an Academic Reference Center.

Authors:  José Carlos Jaime-Pérez; Guillermo Sotomayor-Duque; Patrizia Aguilar-Calderón; Lorena Salazar-Cavazos; David Gómez-Almaguer
Journal:  Int J Hematol Oncol Stem Cell Res       Date:  2019-07-01

Review 5.  State-of-the-art of lumbar puncture and its place in the journey of patients with Alzheimer's disease.

Authors:  Harald Hampel; Leslie M Shaw; Paul Aisen; Christopher Chen; Alberto Lleó; Takeshi Iwatsubo; Atsushi Iwata; Masahito Yamada; Takeshi Ikeuchi; Jianping Jia; Huali Wang; Charlotte E Teunissen; Elaine Peskind; Kaj Blennow; Jeffrey Cummings; Andrea Vergallo
Journal:  Alzheimers Dement       Date:  2021-05-27       Impact factor: 16.655

6.  Retrospective analysis of predisposing factors for difficult lumbar punctures requiring image guidance in pediatric oncology patients.

Authors:  Michael J Frett; Heidi Meeks; Kyle J Morgan; Hasmukh Prajapati; Vinod Maller; Robert Gold; Doralina Anghelescu
Journal:  Pediatr Hematol Oncol       Date:  2021-04-01       Impact factor: 2.070

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.