The Experts below are selected from a list of 12156 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

Hülya Başar - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • treatment of post dural puncture Headache with bilateral greater occipital nerve block
    Headache, 2009
    Co-Authors: Suna Akin Takmaz, Çiğdem Ünal Kantekin, Cetin Kaymak, Hülya Başar
    Abstract:

    (Headache 2010;50:869-881) Epidural blood patch is an effective treatment with a low complication rate. It is also an invasive method that can cause permanent neurological sequelae such as early and late back pain, radiculopathy, spinal-subdural hematoma, spinal-epiarachnoid hematoma, intrathecal hematoma, arachnoiditis, and infection. We report a case in which a postdural puncture Headache resolved within 2 minutes of a greater occipital nerve block, a minimally invasive and easy procedure with a low complication rate. This case report suggests that a greater occipital nerve block may be a successful alternative treatment for patients with post-dural puncture Headache.

Suna Akin Takmaz - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • treatment of post dural puncture Headache with bilateral greater occipital nerve block
    Headache, 2009
    Co-Authors: Suna Akin Takmaz, Çiğdem Ünal Kantekin, Cetin Kaymak, Hülya Başar
    Abstract:

    (Headache 2010;50:869-881) Epidural blood patch is an effective treatment with a low complication rate. It is also an invasive method that can cause permanent neurological sequelae such as early and late back pain, radiculopathy, spinal-subdural hematoma, spinal-epiarachnoid hematoma, intrathecal hematoma, arachnoiditis, and infection. We report a case in which a postdural puncture Headache resolved within 2 minutes of a greater occipital nerve block, a minimally invasive and easy procedure with a low complication rate. This case report suggests that a greater occipital nerve block may be a successful alternative treatment for patients with post-dural puncture Headache.

Marta Roque I Figuls - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • needle gauge and tip designs for preventing post dural puncture Headache pdph
    Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2017
    Co-Authors: Ingrid Arevalorodriguez, Natalia Godoycasasbuenas, Agustin Ciapponi, Jimmy J Arevalo, Sabine Boogaard, Luis Muñoz, Marta Roque I Figuls
    Abstract:

    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.

  • posture and fluids for preventing post dural puncture Headache
    Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2016
    Co-Authors: Ingrid Arevalorodriguez, Agustin Ciapponi, Marta Roque I Figuls, Luis Muñoz, Xavier Bonfill Cosp
    Abstract:

    Background Post-dural puncture Headache (PDPH) is a common complication of lumbar punctures. Several theories have identified the leakage of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) through the hole in the dura as a cause of this side effect. It is therefore necessary to take preventive measures to avoid this complication. Prolonged bed rest has been used to treat PDPH once it has started, but it is unknown whether prolonged bed rest can also be used to prevent it. Similarly, the value of administering fluids additional to those of normal dietary intake to restore the loss of CSF produced by the puncture is unknown. This review is an update of a previously published review in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (Issue 7, 2013) on "Posture and fluids for preventing post-dural puncture Headache". Objectives To assess whether prolonged bed rest combined with different body and head positions, as well as administration of supplementary fluids after lumbar puncture, prevent the onset of PDPH in people undergoing lumbar puncture for diagnostic or therapeutic purposes. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and LILACS, as well as trial registries up to February 2015. Selection criteria We identified randomized controlled trials that compared the effects of bed rest versus immediate mobilization, head-down tilt versus horizontal position, prone versus supine positions during bed rest, and administration of supplementary fluids versus no/less supplementation, as prevention measures for PDPH in people who have undergone lumbar puncture. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently assessed the studies for eligibility through the web-based software EROS (Early Review Organizing Software). Two different review authors independently assessed risk of bias using the criteria outlined in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We resolved any disagreements by consensus. We extracted data on cases of PDPH, severe PDPH, and any Headache after lumbar puncture and performed intention-to-treat analyses and sensitivity analyses by risk of bias. We assessed the evidence using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) and created a 'Summary of findings' table. Main results We included 24 trials with 2996 participants in this updated review. The number of participants in each trial varied from 39 to 382. Most of the included studies compared bed rest versus immediate mobilization, and only two assessed the effects of supplementary fluids versus no supplementation. We judged the overall risk of bias of the included studies as low to unclear. The overall quality of evidence was low to moderate, downgraded because of the risk of bias assessment in most cases. The primary outcome in our review was the presence of PDPH. There was low quality evidence for an absence of benefits associated with bed rest compared with immediate mobilization on the incidence of severe PDPH (risk ratio (RR) 0.98; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.68 to 1.41; participants = 1568; studies = 9) and moderate quality evidence on the incidence of any Headache after lumbar puncture (RR 1.16; 95% CI 1.02 to 1.32; participants = 2477; studies = 18). Furthermore, bed rest probably increased PDPH (RR 1.24; 95% CI 1.04 to 1.48; participants = 1519; studies = 12) compared with immediate mobilization. An analysis restricted to the most methodologically rigorous trials (i.e. those with low risk of bias in allocation method, missing data and blinding of outcome assessment) gave similar results. There was low quality evidence for an absence of benefits associated with fluid supplementation on the incidence of severe PDPH (RR 0.67; 95% CI 0.26 to 1.73; participants = 100; studies = 1) and PDPH (RR 1; 95% CI 0.59 to 1.69; participants = 100; studies = 1), and moderate quality evidence on the incidence of any Headache after lumbar puncture (RR 0.94; 95% CI 0.66 to 1.34; participants = 200; studies = 2). We did not expect other adverse events and did not assess them in this review. Authors' conclusions Since the previous version of this review, we found one new study for inclusion, but the conclusion remains unchanged. We considered the quality of the evidence for most of the outcomes assessed in this review to be low to moderate. As identified studies had shortcomings on aspects related to randomization and blinding of outcome assessment, we therefore downgraded the quality of the evidence. In general, there was no evidence suggesting that routine bed rest after dural puncture is beneficial for the prevention of PDPH onset. The role of fluid supplementation in the prevention of PDPH remains unclear.

Ingrid Arevalorodriguez - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • needle gauge and tip designs for preventing post dural puncture Headache pdph
    Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2017
    Co-Authors: Ingrid Arevalorodriguez, Natalia Godoycasasbuenas, Agustin Ciapponi, Jimmy J Arevalo, Sabine Boogaard, Luis Muñoz, Marta Roque I Figuls
    Abstract:

    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.

  • posture and fluids for preventing post dural puncture Headache
    Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2016
    Co-Authors: Ingrid Arevalorodriguez, Agustin Ciapponi, Marta Roque I Figuls, Luis Muñoz, Xavier Bonfill Cosp
    Abstract:

    Background Post-dural puncture Headache (PDPH) is a common complication of lumbar punctures. Several theories have identified the leakage of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) through the hole in the dura as a cause of this side effect. It is therefore necessary to take preventive measures to avoid this complication. Prolonged bed rest has been used to treat PDPH once it has started, but it is unknown whether prolonged bed rest can also be used to prevent it. Similarly, the value of administering fluids additional to those of normal dietary intake to restore the loss of CSF produced by the puncture is unknown. This review is an update of a previously published review in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (Issue 7, 2013) on "Posture and fluids for preventing post-dural puncture Headache". Objectives To assess whether prolonged bed rest combined with different body and head positions, as well as administration of supplementary fluids after lumbar puncture, prevent the onset of PDPH in people undergoing lumbar puncture for diagnostic or therapeutic purposes. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and LILACS, as well as trial registries up to February 2015. Selection criteria We identified randomized controlled trials that compared the effects of bed rest versus immediate mobilization, head-down tilt versus horizontal position, prone versus supine positions during bed rest, and administration of supplementary fluids versus no/less supplementation, as prevention measures for PDPH in people who have undergone lumbar puncture. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently assessed the studies for eligibility through the web-based software EROS (Early Review Organizing Software). Two different review authors independently assessed risk of bias using the criteria outlined in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We resolved any disagreements by consensus. We extracted data on cases of PDPH, severe PDPH, and any Headache after lumbar puncture and performed intention-to-treat analyses and sensitivity analyses by risk of bias. We assessed the evidence using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) and created a 'Summary of findings' table. Main results We included 24 trials with 2996 participants in this updated review. The number of participants in each trial varied from 39 to 382. Most of the included studies compared bed rest versus immediate mobilization, and only two assessed the effects of supplementary fluids versus no supplementation. We judged the overall risk of bias of the included studies as low to unclear. The overall quality of evidence was low to moderate, downgraded because of the risk of bias assessment in most cases. The primary outcome in our review was the presence of PDPH. There was low quality evidence for an absence of benefits associated with bed rest compared with immediate mobilization on the incidence of severe PDPH (risk ratio (RR) 0.98; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.68 to 1.41; participants = 1568; studies = 9) and moderate quality evidence on the incidence of any Headache after lumbar puncture (RR 1.16; 95% CI 1.02 to 1.32; participants = 2477; studies = 18). Furthermore, bed rest probably increased PDPH (RR 1.24; 95% CI 1.04 to 1.48; participants = 1519; studies = 12) compared with immediate mobilization. An analysis restricted to the most methodologically rigorous trials (i.e. those with low risk of bias in allocation method, missing data and blinding of outcome assessment) gave similar results. There was low quality evidence for an absence of benefits associated with fluid supplementation on the incidence of severe PDPH (RR 0.67; 95% CI 0.26 to 1.73; participants = 100; studies = 1) and PDPH (RR 1; 95% CI 0.59 to 1.69; participants = 100; studies = 1), and moderate quality evidence on the incidence of any Headache after lumbar puncture (RR 0.94; 95% CI 0.66 to 1.34; participants = 200; studies = 2). We did not expect other adverse events and did not assess them in this review. Authors' conclusions Since the previous version of this review, we found one new study for inclusion, but the conclusion remains unchanged. We considered the quality of the evidence for most of the outcomes assessed in this review to be low to moderate. As identified studies had shortcomings on aspects related to randomization and blinding of outcome assessment, we therefore downgraded the quality of the evidence. In general, there was no evidence suggesting that routine bed rest after dural puncture is beneficial for the prevention of PDPH onset. The role of fluid supplementation in the prevention of PDPH remains unclear.

G H Mcmorland - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • comparison of the 25 gauge whitacre with the 24 gauge sprotte spinal needle for elective caesarean section cost implications
    Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia-journal Canadien D Anesthesie, 1993
    Co-Authors: David Campbell, Joanne M Douglas, T J G Pavy, Pamela M Merrick, Mary Lou Flanagan, G H Mcmorland
    Abstract:

    Spinal anaesthesia provides rapid, safe anaesthesia for Caesarean section. The pencil-point spinal needles (Sprotte and Whitacre) are reported to have a low incidence of post-dural puncture Headache (PDPH). As the 25G Whitacre is less expensive than the 24G Sprotte needle, this prospective, randomized, doubleblind study was designed to compare the incidence of PDPH and ease of insertion of these needles in 304 ASA 1 and 2 women having elective Caesarean section under spinal anaesthesia. Each patient was assessed daily for five consecutive days following Caesarean section by an investigator blinded to the needle used. The results indicate that the two needles have a similar ease of insertion, number of failed insertions, and failed subarachnoid blockade. An inability to insert the spinal needles occurred in two patients in each group. Therefore, 150 patients in each group completed the study. The incidence of PDPH with the 24G Sprotte needle was 4.0% (6/150) compared with 0.66% (1/150) with the 25G Whitacre (NS). There was no correlation between the occurrence of PDPH and the difficulty of needle insertion, presence of transient hypotension or the effectiveness of anaesthesia delivered. This study indicates that both needles are comparable with respect to ease of insertion and incidence of PDPH. As the Whitacre needle is less expensive it is a reasonable alternative to the more expensive Sprotte needle.