Abstract ID: A7
Abstract Title: comarison of degree of pain relief with different lenghts of epidural catheter in epidural space in labouring women
Authors: Sultan N1, Afshan G2
Aga khan university hospital Karachi Sind Pakistan1, Aga Khan University Hospital Karachi Sind Pakistan2
Poster Type: Either
ABSTRACT BODY
Introduction:
Epidural analgesia is considered the most effective technique for labour pain in current clinical practice. Inspite of frequent use of labour pain the length of epidural catheter in epidural space has not been standardized. In current literature threading of epidural catheter in space varies from 1cm to 8cm. This study is designed to compare the degree of pain relief and complications associated with different length of epidural catheter in epidural space.
Material and Methods:
This was a prospective double blind randomized controlled trial. Ninety women between ages of 20-40 years, requesting for epidural in active labour randomly divided in three groups. Group-I had epidural catheter threaded 3cm, in group-II 5cm and in group III 7 cm.
Epidural block was established after the negative test for intrathecal and I/V cannulation. Mean pain score, regression of pain and sensory level were monitored at pre-set intervals. Complications like brady cardia, hypotension, intra-vascular and intrathecal cannulation, and epidural catheter dislodgement were also monitored.
Results:
Demographic characteristics were found similar in all groups. Mean pain scores were better controlled in group II as compared to I and III. No intravascular and intrathecal cannulation was found in any group. Highest incidence of brady cardia and hypotension was recorded in group I due to additional number of boluses of local anesthetic. Unilateral block was found only in group III. Patient satisfaction regarding pain relief among all 3 groups were similar.
Conclusion:
In labouring women 5 cm epidural catheter threading in epidural space found most appropriate to provide good pain relief with less complications.
ATTACHED FILES
Reg Anesth Pain Med 2005; 30(3):A7