-
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study
A randomized double-blind comparison of the double-space technique versus the single-space technique in combined spinal-epidural anesthesia for cesarean section.
- Eun Hee Chun, Sooyoung Cho, Jae Hee Woo, and Youn Jin Kim.
- Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Kangnam Sacred Heart Hospital, Hallym University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
- BMC Anesthesiol. 2020 Jan 30; 20 (1): 29.
BackgroundCombined spinal-epidural anesthesia (CSEA) can be performed with either a single-space technique or a double-space technique for cesarean section. We performed a double-blind randomized controlled study to compare the effect of the double-space technique with that of the single-space technique on sensory block level and side effects.MethodsParturients undergoing elective cesarean section under regional anesthesia were randomized to receive CSEA with either the double-space technique (double group, n = 20) or the single-space technique (single group, n = 20). In the double group, an epidural catheter was inserted at the L1-2 interspace, and dural puncture was performed at the L3-4 interspace. In the single group, the procedure was performed at the L3-4 interspace using the needle-through-needle technique.ResultsThere were no differences in time to readiness or intraoperative level of sensory block between the two groups. The postoperative sensory level was maintained at a higher level in the double group than in the single group (1 h postoperatively, P = 0.029; 6 h postoperatively, P = 0.016). There was no difference between the two groups in terms of side effects. The parturient satisfaction scores 48 h postoperatively were significantly different between groups (9.5 in the double group vs. 8 in the single group, P = 0.004).ConclusionsWe conclude that there were no differences in intraoperative variables between the double-space technique and the single-space technique for CSEA. However, double-space CSEA for cesarean section may be beneficial for controlling postoperative pain and improving parturient satisfaction.Trial RegistrationThe study was retrospectively registered at https://cris.nih.go.kr under the trial ID KCT0002514. Date of registration: October 27, 2017.
Notes
Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
- Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as
*italics*
,_underline_
or**bold**
. - Superscript can be denoted by
<sup>text</sup>
and subscript<sub>text</sub>
. - Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines
1. 2. 3.
, hyphens-
or asterisks*
. - Links can be included with:
[my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
- Images can be included with:
![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
- For footnotes use
[^1](This is a footnote.)
inline. - Or use an inline reference
[^1]
to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document[^1]: This is a long footnote.
.