Abstract :
Background: Epidural anaesthesia is a widely used technique for analgesia and anaesthesia, yet its success depends on accurate identification of the epidural space. The standard loss-of-resistance (LOR) syringe, though effective, requires operator skill and is associated with complications such as dural punctures. The spring-loaded autodetect syringe (SAS) offers continuous pressure and visual confirmation, potentially improving outcomes. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of the SAS and standard LOR syringe in identifying the lumbar epidural space.
Materials and Methods: This randomized controlled study was conducted on 100 ASA I and II patients aged 18–60 years, undergoing lower abdominal and lower limb surgeries. Patients were randomly assigned to the SAS group (n=50) or the standard LOR group (n=50). Time to identify the epidural space (primary outcome), number of attempts, ease of catheter insertion, and incidence of dural punctures (secondary outcomes) were recorded. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS v24, with p
Results: There were no differences in patient demographics and number of attempts to localize the epidural space between both groups. The time taken to identify the epidural space was significantly faster in the SAS group (48.18 ± 10.46 seconds) compared to the standard LOR group (57.78 ± 17.13 seconds; p < 0>
Conclusion: Identifying the epidural space with spring loaded syringe is simple, quick and reliable compared to standard LOR syringe.
Keyword :
Spring loaded autodetect syringe, Loss of resistance syringe, Epidural space, Epidural catheter.