Premium
Assessment of block height for satisfactory spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section
Author(s) -
Ousley R.,
Egan C.,
Dowling K.,
Cyna A. M.
Publication year - 2012
Publication title -
anaesthesia
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.839
H-Index - 117
eISSN - 1365-2044
pISSN - 0003-2409
DOI - 10.1111/anae.12034
Subject(s) - medicine , caesarean section , anesthesia , spinal anesthesia , block (permutation group theory) , elective caesarean section , general anaesthesia , regional anaesthesia , nerve block , pregnancy , genetics , geometry , mathematics , biology
Summary We investigated block heights that anaesthetists considered adequate for caesarean section to proceed under spinal anaesthesia. During 3 months, 15 obstetric anaesthetists recorded block height to touch, pinprick or cold when spinal anaesthesia was considered satisfactory for caesarean section to proceed. Median (IQR [range]) block height for touch, pinprick, first cold and icy were: T10 (T7–T12 [T3–L1]); T5 (T4–T6 [C7–L1]); T5 (T4–T6 [C7–L1]); and T3 (T2–T4 [C7–L1]), respectively. Modalities were significantly correlated for: touch and cold, p = 0.0001; touch and icy, p = 0.0007; touch and pinprick, p = 0.0018; cold and icy, p < 0.0001; cold and pinprick, p = 0.0001; icy and pinprick, p < 0.0001. Pairwise comparisons showed differences between all modalities (p < 0.001) apart from pinprick and first cold (p = 0.94). All women had satisfactory anaesthesia despite 76 (81%) having a block to touch below T6. Single modality assessment of block height, particularly using touch, may erroneously indicate inadequate anaesthesia for caesarean section.