Search

Purpose Of Review: Post dural puncture headache (PDPH) is a relatively common complication which may occur in the setting of inadvertent dural puncture (DP) during labor epidural analgesia and during intentional DP during spinal anesthetic placement or diagnostic lumbar puncture. Few publications have established the long-term safety of an epidural blood patch (EBP) for the treatment of a PDPH.Recent Findings: The aim of this pilot study was to examine the association of chronic low back pain (LBP) in patients who experienced a PDPH following labor analgesia and were treated with an EBP. A total of 146 patients were contacted and completed a survey questionnaire via telephone. The EBP group was found to be more likely to have chronic LBP (percentage difference 20% [95% CI 6-33%], RR 2.6 [95% CI 1.3-5.2]) and also LBP < 6 (percentage difference 24% [95% CI 9- 37%], RR 2.3 [95% CI 1.3-4.1]). There were no significant differences in the severity and descriptive qualities of pain between the EBP and non-EBP groups. Our findings suggest that PDPH treated with an EBP is associated with an increased prevalence of subsequent low back pain in parturients. The findings of this pilot study should spur further prospective research into identifying potential associations between DP, EBP, and chronic low back pain. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective. The purpose of this study was to perform a comparative analysis of the contralateral oblique (CLO) view and the lateral view for lumbar interlaminar epidural access. Design. After the epidural space was accessed, fluoroscopic images at eight different angles (anteroposterior view, multiple CLO, and lateral view) were prospectively obtained. Visualization and location of needle tip relative to bony landmarks were analyzed. The epidural location of the needle was subsequently confirmed by contrast injection and analysis in multiple views. Results. Visualization of the needle tip and the relevant radiologic landmarks was superior in the CLO view. The needle tip location in the epidural space was most consistent at a CLO angle of 45°. Conclusion. This study shows that the CLO view for lumbar interlaminar epidural access offers clear advantages over the lateral view on many clinically important grounds: the needle tip visualization is better, the important radiological landmarks are better visualized, and the needle tip when placed in the epidural space presents a more precise relationship to these landmarks. All of these differences were highly significant. Thus, when using this view, the needle may be directly placed in very close vicinity to the epidural space and true loss of resistance expected soon thereafter. In addition, this view provides the ability to plot the cranio-caudad needle trajectory. The combination of these factors is likely to improve the ease and efficiency of epidural access. The crisp visualization of the final moments of epidural access could also translate to improved safety and accuracy. In light of this, it is suggested that a CLO view at 45° be considered the preferred view for gauging needle depth during interlaminar lumbar epidural access. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Celiac plexus neurolysis (CPN) is an effective but temporary management tool for pancreatic cancer pain (PCP). Clinical studies have shown the duration of benefit with initial CPN to be apaproximately 3 months. When pain recurs, CPN may be repeated, but the outcomes for repeat CPN are not well established. The objective of this study is to determine the success rate and duration of relief following repeat celiac plexus neurolysis (rCPN) for PCP. Methods: Patients who underwent rCPN were identified from a database and their records reviewed. Responses of rCPN were then compared with iCPN for success rates and duration of relief. Success was defined as ≥ 50% pain relief lasting ≥ 1 month. Results: Overall, there were 24 rCPN performed. The success rate decreased from 67% after initial CPN to 29% following rCPN ( P = 0.13). The mean duration of pain relief decreased in parallel from 3.4 months (iCPN) to 1.6 months (rCPN) ( P = 0.03). Among those who had a successful rCPN, 2.9 months elapsed from iCPN to rCPN, with disease progression noted in 29%. In those who failed rCPN, 7.8 months elapsed, with disease progression apapreciated in 71% of cases. Conclusions: rCPN does not provide as much pain relief as iCPN. Disease progression as detailed on imaging appears to be a major factor in the limitations of rCPN. Further prospective studies are warranted to confirm these results and investigate the utility of rCPN. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]