ArticleCureus2021
Retrospective Comparative Analysis of Fluoroscopic-Guided Lumbar Puncture in the Routine Prone Versus Lateral Decubitus Position.
Article in Cureus, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Fluoroscopy-Guided Lumbar Puncture Training: Needs Assessment for Alternative Teaching Methods Including Simulation.Cureus · 2026Article
- Why, How Often, and What Happens When We Fail: A Retrospective Analysis of Failed Fluoroscopically Guided Lumbar Punctures.AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveWe sought to investigate patient outcomes such as success rate, fluoroscopy time, and radiation dose for fluoroscopic-guided lumbar puncture procedures performed in the prone position versus the lateral decubitus (LD) position.
methodsRetrospective chart analysis was performed at a single institution from 2013 to 2019. Cases were separated by performance in the prone or lateral decubitus positions. Data collected include patient characteristics, fluoroscopy time, radiation dose (DAP), puncture level, indication, opening pressure, and success rate. Exclusion criteria include trainee participation and procedures where positioning was unspecified. Mean fluoroscopy time, DAP, and procedure success rate were calculated and compared between groups.
resultsMean fluoroscopy time (min) was 0.97 and 1.07 in the LD and prone groups respectively (p = 0.21). Mean DAP (mGy) was 43.18 and 42.06 in the LD and prone groups respectively (p = 0.38). Success rate was 98.3% and 89.1% in the LD and prone groups respectively (p = 0.04). Room time (minutes) was 64.46 and 77.77 in the LD and prone groups respectively (p = 0.04).
conclusionOur study found no statistically significant difference in terms of fluoroscopic time or radiation dose when comparing fluoroscopic-guided lumbar punctures in the prone versus lateral decubitus positions. Further analysis did show a statistically significant increased success rate and a shorter room time for the lateral decubitus position.
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.