ArticleActa anaesthesiologica Scandinavica2025
Conus medullaris termination: Assessing safety of spinal anesthesia in the L2-L3 interspace.
Article in Acta anaesthesiologica Scandinavica, 2025. 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.
- Safety of spinal anaesthesia in the East African population: assessment of spinal cord termination level at and above L2 vertebra in adults.BMC anesthesiology · 2025Observational
- Conus medullaris termination: Assessing safety of spinal anesthesia in the L2-L3 interspace.Acta anaesthesiologica Scandinavica · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundClassic teaching is that spinal anesthesia is safe at or below the L2-L3 interspace. To evaluate this, we sought to determine the percentage of individuals with a conus medullaris termination (CMT) level at or below the L1-L2 interspace. Further, the relationship of CMT level to age, sex, body mass index (BMI), and spinal pathology was examined, as was the reliability of using Tuffier's line (TL) as an anatomical landmark.
methodsThis retrospective study evaluated magnetic resonance images of 944 adult patients to determine the CMT level. The relationship between age, sex, height, BMI, and spinal pathology and CMT level was explored by logistic regression. The correspondence of the TL line to the L4-L5 interspace and the presence of overlap with the CMT were examined using 720 lumbar x-rays of the same patient cohort.
resultsOf 944 patients (mean age, 57.8 years; 49% male), 18.9% had CMT at or below the L1-L2 interspace, and spinal anesthesia at the L2-L3 interspace was found to carry a 0.7% incidence of neuraxial risk. Only the presence of congenital spinal abnormalities was found to be significantly predictive of having a CMT at or below the L1-L2 interspace. TL was found to correspond to the L4-L5 interspace in 99.8% of patients with lumbar x-rays.
conclusionsSpinal anesthesia at the L2-L3 interspace, using TL as an anatomical landmark, is safe in >99% of patients. However, caution must be exercised in all patients as demographic variables were found to be limited in predicting a low CMT level. EDITORIAL COMMENT: Unlike previous smaller studies, this retrospective study included MRI data from a total of 944 patients. The present study confirms that spinal anesthesia at the L2-L3 interspace or below can be considered safe. The findings indicate that Tuffier's line can be used as a reliable anatomical landmark.
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.