Larysa Duniec1,2, Jan Bilawicz3,4, Marcin Chlebus5, Bronislawa Pietrzak1, Miroslaw Wielgos1. 1. 1st Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Medical University of Warsaw, Poland. 2. I Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, Medical University of Warsaw, Poland. 3. 1st Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Medical University of Warsaw, Poland. bilawicz@wp.pl. 4. I Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, Medical University of Warsaw, Poland. bilawicz@wp.pl. 5. Department of Quantitative Finance, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw, Poland.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES:Conventional loss of resistance (LOR) technique for identifying the epidural space (EDS) predominantly depends on experience of the anaesthetist. A technique using automated syringe for EDS identification was invented as an alternative to the traditional method. The aim of the study was to compare the efficacy and risk for complications between automatic LOR syringe - Epimatic® (Vygon, Ecouen, France) and conventional LOR - Perifix® (B.Braun Melsungen AG, Melsungen, Germany) techniques for EDS identification. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 170 patients were enrolled into the study and 153 cases were analysed. Number of at- tempts, time to EDS identification, ease of EDS identification, complication rate and patient procedure-related discomfort were evaluated and compared. RESULTS: No statistically significant differences were found in the number of needle insertion attempts (1.3 in both groups), time to EDS identification (31 sec. vs. 27 sec.), efficacy of epidural analgesia (100% in both groups), or complication rate between both groups. CONCLUSIONS: The automatic and the conventional LOR techniques are comparable in terms of efficacy and safety for the epidural space identification.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: Conventional loss of resistance (LOR) technique for identifying the epidural space (EDS) predominantly depends on experience of the anaesthetist. A technique using automated syringe for EDS identification was invented as an alternative to the traditional method. The aim of the study was to compare the efficacy and risk for complications between automatic LOR syringe - Epimatic® (Vygon, Ecouen, France) and conventional LOR - Perifix® (B.Braun Melsungen AG, Melsungen, Germany) techniques for EDS identification. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 170 patients were enrolled into the study and 153 cases were analysed. Number of at- tempts, time to EDS identification, ease of EDS identification, complication rate and patient procedure-related discomfort were evaluated and compared. RESULTS: No statistically significant differences were found in the number of needle insertion attempts (1.3 in both groups), time to EDS identification (31 sec. vs. 27 sec.), efficacy of epidural analgesia (100% in both groups), or complication rate between both groups. CONCLUSIONS: The automatic and the conventional LOR techniques are comparable in terms of efficacy and safety for the epidural space identification.