ArticleKorean journal of anesthesiology2012
Minimum current requirement for confirming the localization of an epiradicular catheter placement.
Article in Korean journal of anesthesiology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy of electrical stimulation on epidural anesthesia for cesarean section: a randomized controlled trial.BMC anesthesiology · 2020Trial
- Electric stimulation-guided epidural analgesia for vaginal delivery: A randomized prospective study.PloS one · 2019Trial
- Strategic placement of epidural catheter.Korean journal of anesthesiology · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBased on the necessity to confirm the epiradicular catheter misplacement, epiradicular threshold current for the confirmation of catheter tip localization is required.
methodsThirty-four adult patients with low extremity radiating pain were to receive epiradicular catheterization at the lumbosacral level. The epidural space was accessed percutaneously in cranial to caudal direction. A metal coil-reinforced epidural catheter was inserted and advanced caudolaterally toward the target neural foramen until the catheter tip was located below the bisection of pedicle. The electrical stimulation was performed after catheter placement in epidural and epiradicular space. Using the constant current nerve stimulator, the stimulating current was increased from 0 to 5 mA (pulse width of 0.3 ms; frequency of 2 Hz) until adequate motor contraction was evident. The threshold current for motor response with epidural space (EDmA) and epiradicular space (ERmA) placement were recorded upon electrical stimulation. In addition, the threshold charge for motor response with epidural (EDnC) and epiradicular (ERnC) placement were recorded.
resultsOf 34 catheters intentionally placed in the epiradicular space, ERmA was 0.53 ± 0.48 mA. The ERnC was significantly lower than EDnC (P < 0.05). The EDmA and ERmA were below 1 mA in 3 patients and above 1 mA in 4 patients, respectively.
conclusionsWe conclude that, threshold current for motor response seems to be lower for epiradicular compared with epidural placement, although we were not able to directly investigate the epidural threshold current. The threshold current of epiradicular space overlap that in the epidural space.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.