Cureus · 2021
Retrospective Comparative Analysis of Fluoroscopic-Guided Lumbar Puncture in the Routine Prone Versus Lateral Decubitus Position.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Bakrukov Dmitriy, Siddique Zaid, Mangla Rajiv, Swarnkar Amar
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: We 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.
METHODS: Retrospective 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.
RESULTS: Mean 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).
CONCLUSION: Our 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.
METHODS: Retrospective 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.
RESULTS: Mean 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).
CONCLUSION: Our 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.