Post-spinal headache after dural puncture with perpendicular or horizontal needle bevel direction: a randomized controlled trial in an African rural hospital

Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines on postdural puncture headache: a consensus report from a multisociety international working group

INTRODUCTION

Postdural puncture headache (PDPH) can follow unintentional dural puncture during epidural techniques or intentional dural puncture during neuraxial procedures such as a lumbar puncture or spinal anesthesia. Evidence-based guidance on the prevention, diagnosis or management of this condition is, however, currently lacking. This multisociety guidance aims to fill this void and provide practitioners with comprehensive information and patient-centric recommendations to prevent, diagnose and manage patients with PDPH.

METHODS

Based on input from committee members and stakeholders, the committee cochairs developed 10 review questions deemed important for the prevention, diagnosis and management of PDPH. A literature search for each question was performed in MEDLINE (Ovid) on 2 March 2022. The results from each search were imported into separate Covidence projects for deduplication and screening, followed by data extraction. Additional relevant clinical trials, systematic reviews and research studies published through March 2022 were also considered for the development of guidelines and shared with contributors. Each group submitted a structured narrative review along with recommendations graded according to the US Preventative Services Task Force grading of evidence. The interim draft was shared electronically, with each collaborator requested to vote anonymously on each recommendation using two rounds of a modified Delphi approach.

RESULTS

Based on contemporary evidence and consensus, the multidisciplinary panel generated 50 recommendations to provide guidance regarding risk factors, prevention, diagnosis and management of PDPH, along with their strength and certainty of evidence. After two rounds of voting, we achieved a high level of consensus for all statements and recommendations. Several recommendations had moderate-to-low certainty of evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

These clinical practice guidelines for PDPH provide a framework to improve identification, evaluation and delivery of evidence-based care by physicians performing neuraxial procedures to improve the quality of care and align with patients' interests. Uncertainty remains regarding best practice for the majority of management approaches for PDPH due to the paucity of evidence. Additionally, opportunities for future research are identified.

Real-world practice of acute leukemia intrathecal chemotherapy administration: A Mexican nationwide survey

INTRODUCTION

Intrathecal chemotherapy is a mainstay component of acute lymphoblastic leukemia treatment. In Mexico, there is a considerable practice variability in aspects, such as the manner of preparation and the administration technique.

OBJECTIVE

Our objective was to describe the different techniques used for the application of ITC and review the existing recommendations in the literature.

METHOD

A cross-sectional, nationwide survey study was conducted by an electronic questionnaire sent to hematologists and oncologists in Mexico. We collected demographic data, personal experience, intrathecal chemotherapy techniques, drug preparation and postprocedural conduct.

RESULTS

We received 173 responses. Twenty percent had an anesthesiologist administering sedation and pain management. The platelet count considered safe was 50 × 109/L in 48% of the participants. In 77% (n = 133) of the cases, the conventional needle with stylet used was, 49% did not receive any added diluent in the intrathecal chemotherapy and only 42% were recommended to rest in a horizontal position for more than 30 min.

CONCLUSION

We identified a considerable variation in the administration of intrathecal chemotherapy across the hematologists in Mexico. We discuss the implications and opportunities in reducing the variation in our setting, highlighting the unmet need to establish guidelines that should be evaluated by the Mexican professional society to produce a position paper regarding practice standardization.

Needle gauge and tip designs for preventing post-dural puncture headache (PDPH)

BACKGROUND

Post-dural puncture headache (PDPH) is one of the most common complications of diagnostic and therapeutic lumbar punctures. PDPH is defined as any headache occurring after a lumbar puncture that worsens within 15 minutes of sitting or standing and is relieved within 15 minutes of the patient lying down. Researchers have suggested many types of interventions to help prevent PDPH. It has been suggested that aspects such as needle tip and gauge can be modified to decrease the incidence of PDPH.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of needle tip design (traumatic versus atraumatic) and diameter (gauge) on the prevention of PDPH in participants who have undergone dural puncture for diagnostic or therapeutic causes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and LILACS, as well as trial registries via the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) search portal in September 2016. We adopted the MEDLINE strategy for searching the other databases. The search terms we used were a combination of thesaurus-based and free-text terms for both interventions (lumbar puncture in neurological, anaesthesia or myelography settings) and headache.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) conducted in any clinical/research setting where dural puncture had been used in participants of all ages and both genders, which compared different tip designs or diameters for prevention of PDPH DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 70 studies in the review; 66 studies with 17,067 participants were included in the quantitative analysis. An additional 18 studies are awaiting classification and 12 are ongoing. Fifteen of the 18 studies awaiting classification mainly correspond to congress summaries published before 2010, in which the available information does not allow the complete evaluation of all their risks of bias and characteristics. Our main outcome was prevention of PDPH, but we also assessed the onset of severe PDPH, headache in general and adverse events. The quality of evidence was moderate for most of the outcomes mainly due to risk of bias issues. For the analysis, we undertook three main comparisons: 1) traumatic needles versus atraumatic needles; 2) larger gauge traumatic needles versus smaller gauge traumatic needles; and 3) larger gauge atraumatic needles versus smaller gauge atraumatic needles. For each main comparison, if data were available, we performed a subgroup analysis evaluating lumbar puncture indication, age and posture.For the first comparison, the use of traumatic needles showed a higher risk of onset of PDPH compared to atraumatic needles (36 studies, 9378 participants, risk ratio (RR) 2.14, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.72 to 2.67, I² = 9%).In the second comparison of traumatic needles, studies comparing various sizes of large and small gauges showed no significant difference in effects in terms of risk of PDPH, with the exception of one study comparing 26 and 27 gauge needles (one study, 658 participants, RR 6.47, 95% CI 2.55 to 16.43).In the third comparison of atraumatic needles, studies comparing various sizes of large and small gauges showed no significant difference in effects in terms of risk of PDPH.We observed no significant difference in the risk of paraesthesia, backache, severe PDPH and any headache between traumatic and atraumatic needles. Sensitivity analyses of PDPH results between traumatic and atraumatic needles omitting high risk of bias studies showed similar results regarding the benefit of atraumatic needles in the prevention of PDPH (three studies, RR 2.78, 95% CI 1.26 to 6.15; I² = 51%).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is moderate-quality evidence that atraumatic needles reduce the risk of post-dural puncture headache (PDPH) without increasing adverse events such as paraesthesia or backache. The studies did not report very clearly on aspects related to randomization, such as random sequence generation and allocation concealment, making it difficult to interpret the risk of bias in the included studies. The moderate quality of the evidence for traumatic versus atraumatic needles suggests that further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect.

[Do paediatricians perform lumbar puncture correctly? Review of recommendations and analysis the technique in Spain]

INTRODUCTION

Lumbar puncture (LP) is a commonly performed procedure in paediatrics. Performing this technique properly can avoid the most common associated complications.

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether paediatricians and paediatric residents in Spain follow current recommendations for the LP technique.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A cross-sectional study was conducted by sending a questionnaire by mail through the Spanish Society of Paediatric Emergencies, collecting demographic information and responses to multiple choice questions about LP technique.

RESULTS

A total of 206 questionnaires were analysed, of which 143 (69.5%) were answered by paediatricians, and 63 (30.5%) by paediatric residents. The majority (128; 62.1%) of physicians did not allow parents to be present during LP, 198 (96.1%) routinely use analgesia and sedation; 84 (42%) only used local anaesthesia. The majority of respondents used standard Quincke needles (126; 62.7%). The bevel was correctly positioned when puncturing the dura mater by 22 residents (36.1%) and 21 paediatricians (15.1%), a variation that was statistically significant (P=.001). For neonatal lumbar punctures, 63 paediatricians (46%) and 19 paediatric residents used a butterfly needle which did not contain a stylet, and this difference was also statistically significant (P=.035). Of those surveyed, 190 (92.2%) re-inserted the stylet when re-orientating the needle, and 186 (93%) re-oriented this when removing it. The recommendation of bed rest was made by 195 (94.7%) physicians.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of paediatricians orient the bevel wrongly when inserting the needle during LP, and still use "butterfly" needles in newborns, despite warnings to the contrary. Paediatric residents and less experienced paediatricians follow the recommendations more frequently.

Bevel direction and postdural puncture headache: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The effect of lumbar puncture needle bevel direction on the incidence of postdural puncture headache (PDPH) is somewhat controversial. We performed a meta-analysis of available trials to determine if bevel direction during lumbar puncture would influence the incidence of PDPH.

REVIEW SUMMARY

Studies were identified primarily by searching the National Library of Medicine's PubMed database (1966 to November 29, 2004) and abstracts from several national meetings (American Society of Anesthesiology, International Anesthesia Research Society, American Society of Regional Anesthesia, Society of Obstetric Anesthesia and Perinatology) for terms related to needle and bevel direction. Inclusion criteria were assessment of the incidence of PDPH after lumbar puncture with a cutting needle (eg, Quincke, Tuohy), comparison of a "parallel" (bevel oriented in a longitudinal or cephalad to caudad direction) to "perpendicular" (bevel oriented in a transverse direction) orientation during needle insertion, randomized trials, and trials primarily in adult populations. Data on study characteristics and incidence of PDPH were abstracted from qualified studies and subsequently analyzed. The search resulted in 52 abstracts from which the original articles were obtained and data abstracted, with ultimately a total of 5 articles meeting all inclusion criteria. Insertion of a non-pencil-point/cutting needle with the bevel oriented in a parallel/longitudinal fashion resulted in a significantly lower incidence of PDPH compared with that oriented in a perpendicular/transverse fashion (unadjusted rates of 10.9% versus 25.8%; odds ratio = 0.29 [95% CI = 0.17-0.50]).

CONCLUSIONS

Our meta-analysis indicates that with use of a cutting needle, insertion in a parallel/longitudinal fashion may significantly reduce the incidence of PDPH, although the reasons for this decrease are unclear.