Skip to main content
OpenTrials
Completed

NCT Number: NCT03541798

Comparison of Three Different Sitting Positions for Performing Combined Spinal-Epidural Anesthesia

In this prospective and randomized study, we aimed to compare the effect of of three sitting positions (the traditional sitting position (TSP), the harmstring stretch position (HSP), and the squatting position on the success rate of combined spinal epidural anesthesia in patients undergoing total knee arhtoplasty (TKA) or total hip arthroplasty (THA) surgery.

Completed

Looking for future studies?

Notify Me

Key information

Age range

18 year–70 year

Sex eligibility

All sexes

Study type

Interventional

Phase

Not applicable

Primary location

University of Health Dıskapı Yıldırım Beyazıt Training and Hospital

Ankara, Altındag, 06100, Turkey (Türkiye)

About this study

Positioning of patients plays a major role to identify accurately epidural and/or spinal spaces for neuraxial blocks. Flexed back is considered mandatory to widen the inter spinous space in traditional lateral and sitting positions. In traditional sitting position (TSP), the patient is positioned in a sitting posture on the operating table. A stool is placed by the side of the operating table to support the legs. Both hips and knees are maximally flexed.

In recent years, several studies suggested that the reduction of lumbar lordosis may increase the success rate of spinal or epidural block and reduce needle-bone contact. Different modified sitting positions were described for this aim: the harmstring stretch position (HSP), the squatting position (SP), and the crossed-leg position (CLP).

In modified sitting positions, the patients sit up from supine position with the legs remaining on the operating table, either knees are maximally extended (the harmstring stretch position), or hips and knees are maximally flexed (the squatting position), or hips and knees are flexed with crossing the legs (the crossed leg position). All studies comparing modified sitting positions with TSP found that the success rate and number of needle bone contacts were similar except one study which reported a lower needle bone contact with squatting position. Other factors contributing the success of the neuraxial block were: anatomical landmarks (palpability of the spinous processes, identification of the midline), immobilization of the patient during the injection, and the provider's level of experience.

The combined spinal - epidural (CSE) technique has been increasingly used for over thirty years which consist of intentional injection of a local anesthetic into the subarachnoidal space and the placement of a catheter into epidural space to prolong or modify the block.

Although CSE technique combines the best features of spinal and epidural blockade, it is a more complicated to perform. Studies comparing CSE with epidural and/or spinal technique reported similar failure rates but most of them did not focuse on the effect of patient's positioning.

In this prospective and randomized study, we aimed to compare the effect of of three sitting positions (the traditional sitting position (TSP), the harmstring stretch position (HSP), and the squatting position (SP) on the success rate of CSE anesthesia in patients undergoing total knee arhtoplasty (TKA) or total hip arthroplasty (THA) surgery. The CLSP was not included in the study design because the crossing the legs during the procedure seemed to be painful and difficult in patients with degenerated knee joints.

Our primary endpoint was the number of needle bone contact and the secondary endpoint was ease of needle insertion/space identification.

Who can participate

Healthy volunteers accepted: Yes

Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.

Inclusion criteria

ASA I-II, 18-70 years, combine spinal-epidural anesthesia for elective orthopedic surgery

Exclusion criteria

hypertension, thrombocytopenia, high intracranial pressure, Alzheimer Disease, local anesthetic allegic

Treatment and study plan

positions of patients for combined spinal-epidural anesthesia

Procedure

Patients in groups will be positioned according to the study groups for performing combined spinal epidural anesthesia.

Combined spinal epidural anesthesia

Procedure

After positioning, a combined spinal epidural anesthesia (CSE) will be applied using a CSE Tuohy Needle (18 G) and 27 G Whitacre spinal needle via needle - through needle technique. The epidural space will be located with loss of resistance to saline. 3 ml hyperbaric bupivacaine 0.5% (15 mg) will be given for spinal anesthesia after identification of subarachnoidal space.

Primary outcomes

  1. Ease of identifying of epidural and subarachnoidal space

    Time frame: 3 months

    After positioning of patients for CSE according to groups, the block performer will palpate the iliac crest on both sides. The horizontal line between iliac crests will be used to define the level of the lumbar vertebrae. The lumbar spinous processes of L2, L3,L4, and L5 vertebra levels will be palpated and the palpability of the spinous processes will be graded by the performer to find - out best and the second best interspinous space between spinous processes as follows: easily palpable(score=2), hardly palpable (score=1) and impalpable (score=0). An interspinous space with two easy palpable spinous process will be defined as best interspinous space.An interspinous space with one easy palpable spinous process and a hardly palpable spinous processes will be defined as second best interspinous space. When all spinous processess are impalpable, the performer should choose an interspinous space to perform CSE.

Secondary outcomes

  1. The number of epidural needle-bone contact

    Time frame: 3 months

    The number of epidural needle-bone contact for each positions

Sponsors and collaborators

Lead sponsor

Diskapi Teaching and Research Hospital

Other

Registry information

Important dates

Study start
2019
Primary completion
2019
Study completion
2019
First posted
May 31, 2018
Registry last updated
Dec 24, 2019

OpenTrials presents study information sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. The official registry record should be consulted for the latest information.

View the official ClinicalTrials.gov record (opens in a new tab)

This listing is for discovery and informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, does not guarantee that a study is recruiting, and does not determine eligibility. Contact the study team and a qualified healthcare professional when considering participation.

Published trials that share one or more normalized conditions with this study.