Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30313112›Full record

Observational studyMedicine2018

Analysis of caudal epidurogram in single center: A preliminary study of lumbar radiculopathy management.

Bon Sung Koo, Woo Bin Kang, Jun Woo Park, So Jeong Lee, Mi Soon Lee, A Na Cho, Yang Hoon Chung, Joon Ho Lee, Yong Ik Kim, Won Seok Chae

Open access · goldAbstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 38% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Bon Sung KooDepartment of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Soonchunhyang University Bucheon hospital, Soonchunhyang University College of Medicine, Gyeonggi-do, Republic of Korea.
Woo Bin Kang
Jun Woo Park
So Jeong Lee
Mi Soon Lee
A Na Cho
Yang Hoon Chung
Joon Ho Lee
Yong Ik Kim
Won Seok Chae
Soonchunhyang University · KR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A caudal epidural block involves placing a needle through the sacral hiatus and delivering medication into the epidural space. The procedure is safe and simple, but failure rates can be as high as 25%. The purpose of this study was to investigate the success rate of caudal epidural block by analyzing needle placement and dye flow pattern.We retrospectively analyzed the medical records of patients who underwent caudal epidural block under spinal stenosis. A case was defined as a failure if it met at least one of the following four criteria: the epidural needle was not placed correctly inside the caudal canal; blood regurgitation or aspiration in the needle was observed; the contrast dye was injected into a blood vessel; or a large amount of the dye leaked into the sacral foramen or did not reach the L5-S1 level.At least 1 failure criterion was observed in 14 cases (17.7%), while none of the failure criteria were satisfied in 65 successful cases (82.3%).No matter how experienced the anesthesiologist may be, delivery of adequate therapeutic agent is not achieved in approximately 20% of cases. Therefore, we recommend fluoroscopy-guided needle placement and confirmation by radio-contrast epidurograpy as the best choice.

Indexed as

Anesthesia, CaudalContrast MediaFemaleFluoroscopyHumansMaleRadiculopathyRadiography, InterventionalRetrospective StudiesSpinal StenosisContrast Media

Identifiers

PMID30313112
PMCPMC6203536
OpenAlexW2897491322

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.