Comparison of three sitting positions for combined spinal - epidural anesthesia: a multicenter randomized controlled trial
Comparação de três posições sentadas para anestesia combinada raqui-peridural: estudo clínico multicêntrico randomizado controlado
Background and objectives
The aim of this prospective, multi-centered and multi-arm parallel randomized trial was to test the hypothesis that modified sitting positions including hamstring stretch position (HSP) and squatting position (SP) would reduce needle - bone contact events and increase the success rate of combined spinal - epidural anesthesia (CSEA) compared to traditional sitting position (TSP) in patients undergoing total knee or hip arthroplasty.
Patients and methods
Three hundred and sixty American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) I-III patients, aged between 45-85 years were randomly allocated to one of three groups using computer-generated simple randomization: group TSP (n = 120), group HSP (n = 120), and group SP (n = 120). Primary outcome measures were the number of needle-bone contact and success rates. Secondary outcome measure was the ease of interspinous space identification.
Seven patients in group SP and four of HSP could not tolerate their position and were excluded. Number of needle-bone contact, success rates, and grade of interspinous space identification were similar between groups (p = 1.000). Independent of positioning, the success rates were higher in patients whose interspinous space was graded as easy compared to difficult or impossible (p < 0.001). Success rates reduced, interspinous space identification became more challenging, and number of needle – bone contact increased as patient’s body mass index (BMI) increased (p < 0.001).
SP and HSP may be used as alternatives to the TSP. BMI and ease of interspinous space identification may be considered important determinants for CSEA success.
1 G.R. de Filho, H.P. Gomes, M.H. da Fonseca, et al. Predictors of successful neuraxial block: a prospective study Eur J Anaesthesiol, 19 (2002), pp. 447-451
2 T. Ružman, D. Gulam, I.H. Drenjančević, et al. Factors associated with difficult neuraxial blockade Local Reg Anesth, 7 (2014), pp. 47-52
3 Wj Rhee, Cj Chung, Yh Lim, et al. Factors in patient dissatisfaction and refusal regarding spinal anesthesia Korean J Anesthesiol, 59 (2010), pp. 260-264
4 U. Gurunathan, S.M. Kunju, K.E. Hay, et al. Usefulness of a visual aid in achieving optimal positioning for spinal anesthesia: a randomized trial BMC Anesthesiol, 18 (2018), p. 11
5 M.E. Tashayod, S. Tamadon Spinal block in sitting position without moving the legs Middle East J Anaesthesiol, 5 (1980), pp. 529-533
6 K.S. Fisher, A.T. Arnholt, M.E. Douglas, et al. A randomized trial of the traditional sitting position versus the hamstring stretch position for labor epidural needle placement Anesth Analg, 109 (2009), pp. 532-534
7 S. Soltani Mohammadi, M. Hassani, S.M. Marashi Comparing the squatting position and traditional sitting position for ease of spinal needle placement: a randomized clinical trial Anesth Pain Med, 4 (2014), Article e13969
8 S. Soltani Mohammadi, M. Piri, A. Khajehnasiri Comparing three diﬀerent modiﬁed sitting positions for ease of spinal needle insertion in patients undergoing spinal anesthesia Anesth Pain Med, 7 (2017), Article e55932
9 T.M. Cook Combined spinal–epidural techniques Anaesthesia, 55 (2000), pp. 42-64
10 G. Antes The new CONSORT statement BMJ, 340 (2010), p. c1432
11 D. Moher, S. Hopewell, K.F. Schulz, et al. CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials BMJ, 340 (2010), p. c869
12 E. Juszczak, D.G. Altman, S. Hopewell, K. Schulz Reporting of Multi-Arm Parallel-Group Randomized Trials: Extension of the CONSORT 2010 Statement JAMA, 321 (2019), pp. 1610-1620
13 J. Cohen Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.), Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ (1988), p. 16
14 D.G. Altman Practical Statistics for Medical Research Chapman & Hall/CRC (1991)
15 E.C. Alexopoulos Introduction to multivariate regression analysis Hippokratia, 14 (2010), pp. 23-28
16 C.P. Clinckscales, M.L. Greenfield, M. Vanarese, et al. An observational study of the relationship between lumbar epidural space depth and body mass index in Michigan parturients Int J Obstet Anesth, 16 (2007), pp. 323-327
17 C.M. Brummett, B.S. Williams, R.W. Hurley, et al. A Prospective, observational study of the relationship between body mass index and depth of the epidural space during lumbar transforaminal epidural steroid injection Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine, 34 (2009), pp. 100-105
18 D. Diraçoglu, A. Baskent, I. Yagci, et al. Isokinetic strength measurements in early knee osteoarthritis Acta Reumatol Port, 34 (2009), pp. 72-77
19 A.H. Alnahdi, J.A. Zeni, L. Snyder-Mackler Muscle impairments in patients with knee osteoarthritis Sports Health, 4 (2012), pp. 284-292
20 A. Perlas, L.E. Chaparro, K.J. Chin Lumbar Neuraxial Ultrasound for Spinal and Epidural Anesthesia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Reg Anesth Pain Med, 41 (2016), pp. 251-260
21 T. Şahin, O. Balaban Lumbar Ultrasonography for Obstetric Neuraxial Blocks: Sonoanatomy and Literature Review Turk J Anaesthesiol Reanim, 46 (2018), pp. 257-267