JOURNAL HOME CME HOME THIS MONTH PAST ISSUES ETOC COLLECTIONS AUTHORS REVIEWERS EDITORIAL BOARD FEEDBACK RSS HELP
		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a colleague Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Förster, J. G. Articles by Rosenberg, P. H. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Förster, J. G. Articles by Rosenberg, P. H. Related Collections Equipment Anesthetic Techniques Regional Anesthesia

---

ANALGESIA

An Evaluation of the Epidural Catheter Position by Epidural Nerve Stimulation in Conjunction with Continuous Epidural Analgesia in Adult Surgical Patients

Johannes G. Förster, MD^*, Tomi T. Niemi, MD, PhD^*, Markku T. Salmenperä, MD, PhD^*, Saana Ikonen, MD, PhD, and Per H. Rosenberg, MD, PhD^*

From the Departments of *Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, and Radiology, Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland.

Address correspondence to Johannes G Förster, MD, Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Helsinki University Hospital, Haartmaninkatu 4, PO Box 340, 00029 Helsinki, Finland. Address e-mail to johannes.forster{at}hus.fi.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The epidural stimulation test to confirm epidural catheter position has been described as being simple, fast, and reliable. We evaluated the feasibility of the epidural stimulation test and its potential in contributing to effective postoperative continuous epidural analgesia.

METHODS: Thirty adult patients (ASA I–III) undergoing major abdominal surgery or thoracotomy were to receive continuous epidural analgesia at a thoracic level postoperatively. The epidural stimulation test was performed after catheter placement, after local anesthetic boluses, and during epidural analgesia, up to six times in each patient. Catheter positions were verified by epidurography (before start of epidural analgesia and again on the second postoperative day).

RESULTS: Several technical issues (e.g., need to flush catheter with saline in order to maintain adequate stimulation during >25% of all measurements) and interpretation problems (e.g., interference of respiratory activity [n = 6]) made the implementation of the epidural stimulation test rather time consuming, both at the time of catheter placement and during epidural analgesia. Immediately after catheter placement (before test dose) the epidural stimulation test did not identify four of four catheters positioned outside the spinal canal. In addition, the initial epidural stimulation test indicated a possible intrathecal or paravertebral placement in 3 of 25 catheters correctly positioned in the epidural space. During 107 of 122 (88%) measurements with the catheter tip situated epidurally and with preceding or simultaneous administration of epidural local anesthetic, the epidural stimulation test elicited a motor response. Continuous epidural analgesia provided adequate pain relief in all 25 patients having positive epidurography.

CONCLUSIONS: The epidural stimulation test was often associated with technical difficulties and interpretation problems. The role of the repeated use of the epidural stimulation test for quality assurance in patients undergoing postoperative continuous epidural analgesia remains undetermined.

Anesthesia & Analgesia® is published for the International Anesthesia Research Society® by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins with the assistance of Stanford University Libraries' HighWire Press®. Copyright 2006 by the International Anesthesia Research Society. Online ISSN: 1526-7598   Print ISSN: 0003-2999