ArticleThe British journal of radiology2023
Atraumatic versus cutting needles in fluoroscopic lumbar puncture.
Article in The British journal of radiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesAtraumatic needles are known to reduce complication rates of blind lumbar punctures (LP), however, their use in fluoroscopically guided LP is less studied. This study assessed the comparative difficulty of performing fluoroscopic lumbar puncture with atraumatic needles.
methodsSingle-centre retrospective case-control study comparing atraumatic and conventional or "cutting" needles using fluoroscopic time and radiation dose (Dose Area Product or DAP) as surrogate markers. Patients were assessed from two comparable eight-month periods before and after a policy change to primary use of atraumatic needles.
results105 procedures with a cutting needle were performed in the group prior to the policy change. Median fluoroscopy time was 48 sec and median DAP was 3.14. Of 102 procedures performed in the group after the policy change, 99 were performed with an atraumatic needle and three with a cutting needle after initial attempt with an atraumatic needle. Median fluoroscopy time was 41 sec and median DAP was 3.28. The mean number of attempts was 1.02 in the cutting needle group and 1.05 in the atraumatic needle group. There was no significant difference in median fluoroscopy time, median DAP, or mean number of attempts.
conclusionFluoroscopic screening time, DAP and mean number of attempts were not significantly increased with primary use of atraumatic needles for LP. Use of atraumatic needles should be considered in fluoroscopic LP given the lower complication rates. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This study provides new data showing that the use of atraumatic needles does not increase the difficulty of fluoroscopically guided LP.
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.