4.6 Article

Development of a difficulty score for spinal anaesthesia

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIA
卷 92, 期 3, 页码 354-360

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1093/bja/aeh073

关键词

anaesthetic techniques, subarachnoid

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Multiple attempts at spinal puncture may be hazardous. Accurate preoperative prediction of difficulty adds to the delivery of high quality care. This clinical trial was designed to: (i) determine the predictive performance of difficulty variables; (ii) compare senior and junior anaesthetists; (iii) develop a score to predict difficulty during the performance of spinal anaesthesia. Methods. A total of 300 patients subjected to urological procedures and scheduled for spinal anaesthesia were independently assessed and stratified according to the categories of the difficulty predictors of spinal anaesthesia into one of nine grades (0-8) and randomized according to the experience of the anaesthetist into two groups (group A, staff with more than 15 yrs' experience; group B, resident with more than 6 months but less than 1 yr in training). The number of attempts and levels, and success rate of the technique were the outcome variables. Data were analysed by multivariate analysis and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. Results. The bony landmarks of the back and the radiological characteristics of the lumbar vertebrae were two independent predictors of difficulty. Multivariate analysis indicated differences between junior and senior staff but ROC curves indicated no difference. Grade 4 was the difficulty score at or above which difficulty was expected whether or not radiological characteristics of the vertebrae were included. Conclusions. Spinal bony landmarks and radiological characteristics of the lumbar vertebrae are independent predictors of difficulty during spinal anaesthesia. There is no difference between senior and junior anaesthetists. Grade 4 is the difficulty score at or above which difficulty is expected.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据