ArticleAJNR. American journal of neuroradiology2023
Why, How Often, and What Happens When We Fail: A Retrospective Analysis of Failed Fluoroscopically Guided Lumbar Punctures.
Article in AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeImportant information regarding fluoroscopically guided lumbar puncture (FGLP) performance and referrals is lacking. The purpose of our study was to elucidate the success rate for initial FGLP attempts and re-attempts, reasons for unsuccessful FGLPs, and the relationship between clinical indications and whether patients will undergo a fluoroscopically guided re-attempt, among others. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis retrospective study analyzed failed FGLP attempts in hospitalized adult patients at an academic hospital between June 2016 and March 2022. Unsuccessful FGLPs were labeled as insufficient CSF egress. FGLP reports and patients' clinical charts were analyzed for pertinent information such as clinical indication, reason for failure, whether patients received IV fluid before fluoroscopically guided spinal puncture attempt, and which patients returned for another FGLP attempt. Patients' ages and sex were analyzed using descriptive statistics. The OR was used to investigate the relationship between the clinical indications to perform FGLP and whether patients returned for a re-attempt.
resultsSixty-three of 1389 (4.5%) patients (median age, 62 years) had failed the initial FGLPs administered by 39 trainees. Twenty-eight of 63 (44.4%) patients (median age, 64 years) underwent a re-attempt within a median of 2 days after the first attempt, and 27/28 (96.4%) re-attempts were successful. A dry tap, no egress of CSF was the top reason (58.7%) for failed FGLP, and 12/13 of patients had a successful FGLP after IV hydration. Twenty-seven of 63 (43%) patients did not undergo a repeat attempt, and 100% were subsequently discharged from the hospital. There was no difference (
conclusionsInitial and repeat FGLPs have very high success rates. No difference exists in the likelihood of patients returning for a re-attempt based on clinical indication.
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.