OBJECTIVE: To determine the minimal electrical threshold (MET) necessary to elicit appropriate muscle contraction when the tip of an insulated needle is positioned epidurally or intrathecally at the L5-6 intervertebral space (phase-I) and to determine whether the application of a fixed electrical current during its advancement could indicate needle entry into the intrathecal space (phase-II) in dogs. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, blinded study. ANIMALS: Thirteen (phase-I) and seventeen (phase-II) dogs, scheduled for a surgical procedure where L5-6 intrathecal administration was indicated. METHODS: Under general anesthesia, an insulated needle was first inserted into the L5-6 epidural space and secondly into the intrathecal space and the MET necessary to obtain a muscular contraction of the pelvic limb or tail at each site was determined (phase-I). Under similar conditions, in dogs of phase-II an insulated needle was inserted through the L5-6 intervertebral space guided by the use of a fixed electrical current (0.8 mA) until muscular contraction of the pelvic limb or tail was obtained. Intrathecal needle placement was confirmed by either free flow of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) or myelography. RESULTS: The current required to elicit a motor response was significantly lower (p < 0.0001) when the tip of the needle was in the intrathecal space (0.48 ± 0.10 mA) than when it was located epidurally (2.56 ± 0.57). The use of a fixed electrical stimulation current of 0.8 mA resulted in correct prediction of intrathecal injection, corroborated by either free flow of CSF (n = 12) or iohexol distribution pattern (n = 5), in 100% of the cases. CONCLUSION AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Nerve stimulation may be employed as a tool to distinguish epidural from intrathecal insulated needle position at the L5-6 intervertebral space in dogs. This study demonstrates the feasibility of using an electrical stimulation test to confirm intrathecal needle position in dogs.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the minimal electrical threshold (MET) necessary to elicit appropriate muscle contraction when the tip of an insulated needle is positioned epidurally or intrathecally at the L5-6 intervertebral space (phase-I) and to determine whether the application of a fixed electrical current during its advancement could indicate needle entry into the intrathecal space (phase-II) in dogs. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, blinded study. ANIMALS: Thirteen (phase-I) and seventeen (phase-II) dogs, scheduled for a surgical procedure where L5-6 intrathecal administration was indicated. METHODS: Under general anesthesia, an insulated needle was first inserted into the L5-6 epidural space and secondly into the intrathecal space and the MET necessary to obtain a muscular contraction of the pelvic limb or tail at each site was determined (phase-I). Under similar conditions, in dogs of phase-II an insulated needle was inserted through the L5-6 intervertebral space guided by the use of a fixed electrical current (0.8 mA) until muscular contraction of the pelvic limb or tail was obtained. Intrathecal needle placement was confirmed by either free flow of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) or myelography. RESULTS: The current required to elicit a motor response was significantly lower (p < 0.0001) when the tip of the needle was in the intrathecal space (0.48 ± 0.10 mA) than when it was located epidurally (2.56 ± 0.57). The use of a fixed electrical stimulation current of 0.8 mA resulted in correct prediction of intrathecal injection, corroborated by either free flow of CSF (n = 12) or iohexol distribution pattern (n = 5), in 100% of the cases. CONCLUSION AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Nerve stimulation may be employed as a tool to distinguish epidural from intrathecal insulated needle position at the L5-6 intervertebral space in dogs. This study demonstrates the feasibility of using an electrical stimulation test to confirm intrathecal needle position in dogs.