↓ Skip to main content

Fluoroscopic Guidance Increases the Incidence of Thoracic Epidural Catheter Placement Within the Epidural Space

Overview of attention for article published in Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
61 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Fluoroscopic Guidance Increases the Incidence of Thoracic Epidural Catheter Placement Within the Epidural Space
Published in
Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine, January 2017
DOI 10.1097/aap.0000000000000519
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Thoracic epidural analgesia can reduce postoperative pain and cardiopulmonary morbidity, but it is associated with a high rate of clinical failure. Up to 50% of clinical failure is thought to be related to technical insertion. In this study, patients undergoing thoracic surgery were randomized to one of two catheter insertion techniques: fluoroscopically guided or conventional loss of resistance with saline/air. Our primary aim was to examine whether fluoroscopic guidance could increase the incidence of correct catheter placement and improve postoperative analgesia. Our secondary aim was to assess the potential impact of correct epidural catheter positioning on length of stay in the postanesthesia care unit and total hospital length of stay. This randomized clinical trial was conducted at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center over 25 months (January 2012 to February 2014). Patients (N = 100) undergoing thoracic surgery were randomized to fluoroscopic guidance (n = 47) or to loss of resistance with saline/air (n = 53). Patients were followed for the primary outcomes of 24-hour morphine use, 24-hour numeric pain scores, and the incidence of epidural catheter positioning within the epidural space. Postanesthesia care unit and total hospital lengths of stay were evaluated as secondary outcome measurements and compared for patients with correct epidural catheter positioning and those without correct epidural catheter positioning. One hundred patients were included in an intention-to-treat analysis. Numeric pain scores and 24-hour morphine consumption were no different between groups. Fluoroscopic guidance was associated with an increased incidence of epidural catheter placement within the epidural space compared with loss of resistance with air/saline [fluoroscopic guidance, epidural in 98% (46/47) versus loss of resistance with saline/air, epidural in 74% (39/53)]. There was a significant increase in correct catheter positioning with (odds ratio, 21.07; 95% confidence interval, 2.07-214.38; P = 0.010) or without (odds ratio, 16.15; 95% confidence interval, 2.03-128.47; P = 0.009) adjustment for potentially confounding variables. In an adjusted analysis, correctly positioned thoracic epidural catheters were associated with shorter postanesthesia care unit (5.87 ± 5.39 hours vs 4.30 ± 1.171 hours; P = 0.044) and total hospital length of stay (5.77 ± 4.94 days vs 4.93 ± 2.79 days; P = 0.031). Fluoroscopic guidance increases the incidence of epidural catheter positioning within the epidural space and may reduce postanesthesia care unit and hospital lengths of stay. Future work should validate the effectiveness of this approach.This clinical trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02678039).

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 61 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 61 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 8 13%
Other 5 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 8%
Student > Master 5 8%
Researcher 4 7%
Other 11 18%
Unknown 23 38%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 41%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 7%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 2%
Environmental Science 1 2%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 2%
Other 4 7%
Unknown 25 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 December 2016.
All research outputs
#24,906,734
of 34,536,218 outputs
Outputs from Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine
#2,575
of 3,232 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#321,199
of 463,520 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine
#104
of 142 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,536,218 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,232 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.7. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 463,520 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 142 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.