Inviting an author to review:
Find an author and click ‘Invite to review selected article’ near their name.
Search for authorsSearch for similar articles
14
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Primary Failure of Thoracic Epidural Analgesia in Training Centers : The Invisible Elephant?

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          In teaching centers, primary failure of thoracic epidural analgesia can be due to multiple etiologies. In addition to the difficult anatomy of the thoracic spine, the conventional end point-loss-of-resistance-lacks specificity. Furthermore, insufficient training compounds the problem: learning curves are nonexistent, pedagogical requirements are often inadequate, supervisors may be inexperienced, and exposure during residency is decreasing. Any viable solution needs to be multifaceted. Learning curves should be explored to determine the minimal number of blocks required for proficiency. The problem of decreasing caseload can be tackled with epidural simulators to supplement in vivo learning. From a technical standpoint, fluoroscopy and ultrasonography could be used to navigate the complex anatomy of the thoracic spine. Finally, correct identification of the thoracic epidural space should be confirmed with objective, real-time modalities such as neurostimulation and waveform analysis.

          Related collections

          Most cited references47

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Efficacy of postoperative epidural analgesia: a meta-analysis.

          Whether epidural analgesia is a better method than parenteral opioids for postoperative pain control remains controversial. To systematically review the efficacy of postoperative epidural analgesia vs parenteral opioids, the primary alternative technique. Studies were identified primarily by searching the National Library of Medicine's PubMed database (1966 to April 25, 2002) and other sources for studies related to postoperative epidural analgesia. Inclusion criteria were a comparison of epidural therapy vs parenteral opioids for postoperative analgesia, measurement of pain using a visual analog scale (VAS) or numeric rating scale, randomization of patients to either therapy, and adult patients (> or =18 years). A total of 1404 abstracts were identified, 100 of which met all inclusion criteria. Each article was reviewed and data extracted from tables, text, or extrapolated from figures as needed. Weighted mean pain scores, weighted mean differences in pain score, and weighted incidences of complications were determined by using a fixed-effect model. Epidural analgesia provided better postoperative analgesia compared with parenteral opioids (mean [SE], 19.40 mm [0.17] vs 29.40 mm [0.20] on the VAS; P<.001). When analyzed by postoperative day, epidural analgesia was better than parenteral opioids on each postoperative day (P<.001 for each day after surgery). For all types of surgery and pain assessments, all forms of epidural analgesia provided significantly better postoperative analgesia compared with parenteral opioid analgesia (P<.001 for all), with the exception of thoracic epidural analgesia vs opioids for rest pain after thoracic surgery (weighted mean difference, 0.6 mm; 95% confidence interval, -0.3 to 1.5 mm; P =.12). The complication rates were lower than expected for nausea or vomiting and pruritus but comparable with existing data for lower extremity motor block. Epidural analgesia, regardless of analgesic agent, location of catheter placement, and type and time of pain assessment, provided better postoperative analgesia compared with parenteral opioids.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Failed epidural: causes and management.

            Failed epidural anaesthesia or analgesia is more frequent than generally recognized. We review the factors known to influence the success rate of epidural anaesthesia. Reasons for an inadequate epidural block include incorrect primary placement, secondary migration of a catheter after correct placement, and suboptimal dosing of local anaesthetic drugs. For catheter placement, the loss of resistance using saline has become the most widely used method. Patient positioning, the use of a midline or paramedian approach, and the method used for catheter fixation can all influence the success rate. When using equipotent doses, the difference in clinical effect between bupivacaine and the newer isoforms levobupivacaine and ropivacaine appears minimal. With continuous infusion, dose is the primary determinant of epidural anaesthesia quality, with volume and concentration playing a lesser role. Addition of adjuvants, especially opioids and epinephrine, may substantially increase the success rate of epidural analgesia. Adjuvant opioids may have a spinal or supraspinal action. The use of patient-controlled epidural analgesia with background infusion appears to be the best method for postoperative analgesia.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Epidural Anesthesia and Analgesia

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine
                Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine
                Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
                1098-7339
                2016
                2016
                : 41
                : 3
                : 309-313
                Article
                10.1097/AAP.0000000000000394
                27035462
                dc874578-651c-4e8e-a103-f38a59c9e671
                © 2016
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article