201 combined spinal-epidurals for anaesthesia using a separate needle technique

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Combined spinal-epidural (CSE) anaesthesia may be performed using separate needles or by passing the spinal needle through an epidural needle. The latter technique requires that subarachnoid block is performed before the epidural catheter is placed. This paper examines a series of 201 consecutive CSEs performed with a novel separate needle technique, designed to avoid potential and actual problems associated with the CSE technique. METHODS: The CSE technique involved placement of the spinal needle in the subarachnoid space, followed by replacement of the spinal needle stylet. The epidural catheter was then positioned separately before returning to the spinal needle and injecting the subarachnoid drug. RESULTS: The technique had a high technical success rate. Both needles were successfully placed in 200 (99.5%) cases. Spinal anaesthesia was successful in all cases. The epidural catheter was used in 179 cases and failure of the epidural occurred in 2 (1.1%) cases. Paraesthesia, inability to advance the epidural catheter or blood in the epidural catheter occurred in 31 (15.4%) and necessitated immediate replacement of the epidural catheter in 14 (7%) cases. Postoperatively, typical post-dural puncture headache was reported by one patient (0.5%) and mild backache by four (2%). There were no neurological complications. CONCLUSIONS: This method of CSE anaesthesia can be associated with high success and low complication rates.     

Decrease in the incidence of post-dural puncture headache: maintaining CSF volume

The incidence of epidural needle-induced post-dural puncture headache (PDPH) in parturients following dural puncture with a large bore (18-gauge) needle has been reported to range 76-85%. We describe seven cases in which the performance of epidural anesthesia in parturients was complicated by an unintentional dural puncture with an 18-gauge epidural needle. In all seven cases, the unintentional dural puncture was followed by (i) injection of the CSF in the glass syringe back into the subarachnoid space through the epidural needle, (ii) insertion of a epidural catheter into the subarachnoid space (now referred to as an intrathecal catheter), (iii) injection of a small amount of preservative free saline (3-5 ml) into the subarachnoid space through the intrathecal catheter, (iv) administration of bolus and then continuous intrathecal labor analgesia through the intrathecal catheter and then (v) leaving the intrathecal catheter in-situ for a total of 12-20 h. PDPH occurred in only one of these cases (14%).     

A comparison of Espocan and Tuohy needles for the combined spinal-epidural technique for labor analgesia

When using the needle-through-needle combined spinal-epidural (CSE) technique for labor analgesia, failure to obtain cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), paresthesias, and intrathecal or intravascular migration of the catheter are of concern. Epidural needles with spinal needle apertures, such as the back-hole Espocan (ES) needles, are available and may reduce these risks. We describe the efficacy and adverse events associated with a modified epidural needle (ES) versus a conventional Tuohy needle for CSE. One-hundred parturients requesting labor analgesia (CSE) were randomized into 2 groups: 50-ES 18-gauge modified epidural needle with 27-gauge Pencan atraumatic spinal needle, 50-conventional 18-gauge Tuohy needle with 27-gauge Gertie Marx atraumatic spinal needle. Information on intrathecal or intravascular catheter placement, paresthesia on introduction of spinal needle, failure to obtain CSF through the spinal needle after placement of epidural needle, unintentional dural puncture, and epidural catheter function was obtained. No intrathecal catheter placement occurred in either group. Rates of intravascular catheter placement and unintentional dural puncture were similar between the groups. Significant differences were noted regarding spinal needle-induced paresthesia (14% ES versus 42% Tuohy needles, P = 0.009) and failure to obtain CSF on first attempt (8% ES versus 28% Tuohy needles, P < 0.02). Use of ES needles for CSE significantly reduces paresthesia associated with the insertion of the spinal needle and is associated with more frequent successful spinal needle placement on the first attempt. IMPLICATIONS: The use of modified epidural needles with a back hole for combined spinal-epidural technique significantly reduces paresthesia associated with the insertion of the spinal needle and is associated with more frequent successful spinal needle placement on the first attempt.     

The injection of intrathecal normal saline reduces the severity of postdural puncture headache

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: We investigated whether the injection of 10 mL of normal saline into the subarachnoid space following accidental dural puncture reduced the incidence of postdural puncture headache (PDPH) and the need for epidural blood patch (EBP). METHODS: Twenty-eight patients who experienced accidental dural puncture with an epidural needle had 10 mL of normal saline injected into the subarachnoid space. In 22 patients, the injection was performed immediately through the epidural needle. In 6 patients who had intrathecal catheters placed through the epidural needle, the saline was injected through the catheter before removal. All other patients who experienced wet taps during the same period that the study was in progress but did not receive the saline injection served as a control group, 26 in number. Patients with severe or persistent PDPHs were treated with EBP. RESULTS: Of those patients who received intrathecal normal saline immediately through the epidural needle, 32% developed a headache compared with 62% of controls. Of these, 1 patient who received saline required EBP compared with nine in the control group (P =.004). Of those patients who had intrathecal catheters placed, there were no headaches in the saline group of 6 compared with 3 in the control group of 5, 1 of whom was treated with EBP (P >.05). CONCLUSIONS: The immediate injection of 10 mL intrathecal normal saline after a wet tap significantly reduced the incidence of PDPH and the need for EBP. When an intrathecal catheter had been placed following a wet tap, injection of 10 mL of normal saline before its removal effectively prevented PDPH.     

Combined subarachnoid-epidural technique for obstetric analgesia

Combined spinal-epidural blockade for labor pain has enjoyed increasing popularity in obstetric anesthesia. The usual procedure is to use a single space and a single needle for dural puncture, inserting a spinal needle through an epidural needle followed by insertion of a catheter. A small dose of one or several substances (usually a lipophilic opioid and a local anesthetic) is first injected in the intrathecal space to provide rapid, effective analgesia with minimal muscle blockade. The epidural catheter is used if labor lasts longer than the spinal block, if the spinal block is insufficient, or in case of cesarean section. Combined spinal-epidural blockade is a safe, valid alternative to conventional epidural analgesia and has become the main technique for providing obstetric analgesia in many hospitals. The most widely-recognized advantage of the technique is high maternal satisfaction with rapid and effective analgesia. Mobility of the lower extremities is preserved and the mother is often able to walk. Because opioids are injected into the intrathecal space and because the technique is more invasive than standard epidural analgesia, the potential risk to mother and fetus increases.     

Epidural blood patch under fluoroscopic control: non-surgical treatment of lumbar cerebrospinal fluid fistula following implantation of an intrathecal pump system.

The treatment of lumbar cerebrospinal fluid fistula in the presence of an intrathecal catheter is known to be difficult. Open revision surgery is recommended in the literature, although the rate of recurrence is high. The epidural blood patch technique is well established as a successful treatment for post-dural-puncture headaches. Recent work about the distribution of the injected blood and theoretical considerations about the mechanism of action make this method suitable for the occlusion of spinal leakage even in the presence of an intrathecal catheter. In this note technical details are given for a successful therapy of lumbar cerebrospinal fluid fistula including the right positioning of the opening of the needle (cerebrospinal fluid can be expected intrathecally and epidurally) by injection of contrast medium first for myelography then for epidurography. In this procedure the (epidural) distribution of autologous blood can be indirectly controlled by compression of the dural sac. The method is easy to perform, and the possible risks are small.     

Injecting saline through the epidural needle decreases theiv epidural catheter placement rate during combined spinal-epidural labour analgesia

PURPOSE: To determine if injecting 10 mL saline before epidural catheter threading (pre-cannulation epidural fluid injection) can decrease the incidence of iv epidural catheter placement during combined spinal-epidural (CSE) labour analgesia. METHODS: One hundred healthy women requesting CSE labour analgesia with either fentanyl 20 microg or sufentanil 10 microg were prospectively randomized to receive either no epidural injection (dry group, n = 50) or epidural 10 mL saline injection (saline group, n = 50) before epidural catheter placement. A nylon multiport catheter was then threaded 3-5 cm into the epidural space and the needle was removed. We diagnosed iv catheter placement if blood was freely aspirated, if the mother became tachycardic after injection of epinephrine 15 microg, or if intracardiac air was heard (using ultrasound) after injection of air 1.5 mL. RESULTS: Intravenous epidural catheter placement occurred in one saline and ten dry group patients (P < 0.01). No complications of excessive cephalad intrathecal opioid spread (i.e., difficulty swallowing, hypoxemia, or respiratory arrest) occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Injecting 10 mL or saline through the epidural needle after intrathecal opioid injection and before threading the catheter significantly decreased accidental venous catheter placement without any apparent increase in complications from excessive cephalad intrathecal opioid spread.     

A sheared off and sequestered epidural catheter: a case report

This is a report of a retained epidural catheter segment after placement of 20-G polyethylene catheter (Hakko Medical) through 17-G Tuohy needle and 25-G spinal needle (Top Company) for a patient receiving combined spinal-epidural anesthesia. Retained catheter fragment (approximately 10.6 cm) was removed easily with small incision under local anesthesia. Electron microscopic findings of the catheter showed that the catheter might have been traumatized by the Tuohy needle through which the catheter was placed or by the spinal needle for intrathecal anesthesia, resulting in having been sheared off.     

Combined spinal and epidural anesthesia for orthopaedic surgery in the elderly]

The pros and cons as to which anesthesia is more beneficial, either spinal or epidural, prompted us to perform combined spinal and epidural block in the elderly undergoing lower limb surgery. The selected epidural space was entered with a 17-gauge Tuohy needle and a longer 26-gauge spinal needle was passed through it and into the subarachnoid space. Following the injection of required dose of 2% preservative-free lidocaine (isobaric), spinal needle was withdrawn and an epidural catheter was inserted. We could use this combined technique on 17 patients older than 80 yr (mean age; 84.5 +/- 3.9 years) with satisfactory results and without any serious cardiovascular change, as with 17 middle-aged patients (57.5 +/- 5.2 years). This combination of techniques provides a rapid onset and reliability of spinal block with high quality analgesia by supplementation through the epidural catheter during and after surgery. In the orthopaedic procedures on the lower limbs, combined spinal and epidural block is more useful even for the elderly over the age of 80 yr than spinal or epidural anesthesia alone.     

Stimulating thoracic epidural placement via a lumbar approach causes significant spinal cord damage in a porcine model

Background

Continuous thoracic epidural analgesia is a valuable and common technique for analgesia but involves risk to the spinal cord. There is significant pediatric experience safely placing thoracic epidurals via a caudal approach. The use of a stimulating catheter offers the advantage of real-time confirmation of appropriate catheter placement. We hypothesize that the tip of a stimulating epidural catheter can be reliably advanced to the thoracic epidural space with lumbar insertion in a porcine model.

Methods

This prospective experimental porcine study evaluated the feasibility of placing the tip of a stimulating epidural catheter to a predefined thoracic epidural location after percutaneous lumbar epidural access in six live pigs. After the lumbar epidural space was accessed, a stimulating epidural catheter was advanced until the targeted thoracic myotome was stimulated. The final position of the catheter in relation to the targeted location was determined by fluoroscopy. All animals were euthanized at the end of the experiment, necropsy and spinal cord histology were then performed to assess the extent of spinal cord damage.

Results

In all animals the epidural catheter tip could be accurately advanced to the targeted thoracic myotome. Gross subdural bleeding occurred in three of the six animals and deep spinal damage was observed in two of the six animals. In one animal, the catheter was placed in the subarachnoid space.

Conclusions

Accurate access to the thoracic epidural space is possible via a lumbar approach using a stimulating epidural catheter. Based on gross and histopathological examination, this technique resulted in frequent complications, including subdural hemorrhage, deep spinal cord damage, and subarachnoid catheter placement.     

Complications of 761 short-term intrathecal macrocatheters in obstetric patients: a retrospective review of cases over a 12-year period

BackgroundA continuous spinal catheter is a reliable alternative to standard neuraxial techniques in obstetric anesthesia. Despite the potential advantages of intrathecal catheters, they remain underutilized due to fear of infection, nerve damage or post-dural puncture headache. In our tertiary care center, intrathecal catheters are either placed intentionally in high-risk obstetric patients or following inadvertent dural puncture using a 19-gauge macrocatheter passed through a 17-gauge epidural needle.MethodsA retrospective review of 761 intrathecal catheters placed from 2001 to 2012 was conducted. An institutional obstetric anesthesia database was used to identify patients with intrathecal catheters. Medical records were reviewed for procedural details and complications.ResultsThere were no serious complications, including meningitis, epidural or spinal abscess, hematoma, arachnoiditis, or cauda equina syndrome, associated with intrathecal catheters. The failure rates were 2.8% (3/108) for intentional placements and 6.1% (40/653) for placements following accidental dural puncture. The incidence of post-dural puncture headache was 41% (312/761) and the epidural blood patch rate was 31% (97/312).ConclusionsThis review demonstrates that intrathecal catheters are dependable and an option for labor analgesia and surgical anesthesia for cesarean delivery. Serious long-lasting complications are rare.     

Combined spinal-epidural analgesia in advanced labour

The combined spinal-epidural technique is a modification of epidural analgesia which combines the rapid onset of spinal analgesia with the flexibility of an epidural catheter. We sought to evaluate the effectiveness of an intrathecal opioid — low-dose local anaesthetic combination for parturients in advanced labour, a setting where satisfactory epidural analgesia is often difficult to achieve. The technique was evaluated in an open-label, non-randomized trial using parturients in advanced, active labour for the provision of pain relief during the late first stage and second stage of labour. Thirty-eight term parturients in active, advanced labour received a spinal injection of bu-pivacaine 2.5 mg and sufentanil, 10 μg, via a 25- or 27-gauge Whitacre needle placed into the subarachnoid space through a 17- or 18- gauge Weiss epidural needle which had been placed into the epidural space. This was followed by placement of an epidural catheter for supplemental analgesia if required. Onset of analgesia was noted by asking patients if their contractions were comfortable. Motor blockade was assessed using the Bromage criteria. Patients were asked if they experienced either pruritus or nausea on a four-point scale (none, mild, moderate, severe). The mean cervical dilatation at placement of the spinal medication was 6.1 ± 2.2 cm. Thirty-two patients had spontaneous vaginal delivery, two were delivered by outlet forceps, and four by Caesarean section. Onset of analgesia was rapid (< five minutes) in all cases. Twenty-three patients (60%) delivered vaginally with no additional anaesthetic. The remaining 15 had supplemental local anaesthetic given via the epidural catheter, a mean of 123 ± 33 min after the original spinal dose. Side effects were limited to pruritus in eight (21%) patients, and mild lower extremity motor weakness in one patient. One patient experienced transient hypotension. No patient developed postdural puncture headache. This technique allows for profound analgesia with a rapid onset and few bothersome side effects. In particular, the absence of motor blockade may facilitate maternal expulsive efforts or positioning during the second stage of labour.     

A comparison of catheter vs needle injection of local anesthetic for induction of epidural anesthesia for cesarean section

It is generally believed that bolus injections of local anesthetic through an epidural needle produce a more rapid onset of blockade, but at the expense of an increased incidence and severity of hypotension, whereas intermittent injections through a catheter take longer to achieve adequate anesthesia but with a lower risk of hypotension. The present study investigated two commonly used needle and catheter epidural injection techniques for differences in speed of onset of surgical anesthesia and incidence and severity of hypotension. Term parturients scheduled for elective cesarean section were randomized into two groups to receive epidural anesthesia with intermittent injection either through the epidural needle (n = 44) or via a previously placed catheter (n = 44). The incidence and severity of hypotension was similar in the two groups. No significant difference was found for the time to onset of surgical anesthesia. In the absence of benefits of needle injection, incremental catheter administration of local anesthetic with its multiple safety advantages is the technique of choice for induction of epidural anesthesia for cesarean section.     

The combined spinal-epidural technique

Epidural and spinal blocks are well-accepted regional techniques, but they have several disadvantages. The CSE technique can reduce or eliminate the risks of these disadvantages. CSE block combines the rapidity, density, and reliability of the subarachnoid block with the flexibility of continuous epidural block to extend duration of analgesia. The CSE technique is used routinely at many institutions, particularly for major orthopedic surgery and in obstetrics. It has been used in tens of thousands of patients without any reports of major problems. Although at first sight the CSE technique appears to be more complicated than epidural or spinal block alone, intrathecal drug administration and siting of the epidural catheter are both enhanced by the combined, single-space, needle-through-needle method. Concerns about the epidural catheter entering the theca via the small puncture hole are now considered to be unfounded, but as with all epidural catheter techniques, vigilant monitoring of the patient during and after any injection is paramount. CSE is an effective way to reduce the total drug dosage required for anesthesia or analgesia. The intrathecal injection achieves rapid onset with minimal doses of local anesthetics and opioids, and the block can be prolonged with low-dose epidural maintenance administration. In addition, the sequential CSE method can be used to extend the dermatomal block with minimal additional drugs or even saline. Reduction in total drug dosage has made truly selective blockade possible. Many studies have confirmed that low-dose CSE with local anesthetic and opioid, or low-dose epidural block alone, will provide effective analgesia with minimal motor and proprioceptive block. Such neurologic selective blockade has made it possible for most patients to walk and bear down normally in labor or postoperatively. There remains concern about the risk of infection being increased when the CSE technique is used in place of epidural block alone. Despite a recent flurry of reports of meningitis with CSE procedures, there is no evidence the CSE block is more hazardous than epidural or subarachnoid block alone. Arguably, the single-space, needle-through-needle CSE technique will continue to improve with new needle designs and other advances to improve further the success rate and reduce complications, such as neurotrauma, PDPH, and infection. Over the past decade it has become clear that the CSE technique is a significant advance in regional blockade.     

Evaluation of a spinal needle locking device for use with the combined spinal epidural technique

Success of the 'needle-through-needle' technique for combined spinal epidural analgesia requires the immobilisation of the spinal needle during intrathecal injection. A device that achieves this was evaluated in 200 labouring women, randomly allocated to receive a combined spinal epidural using the CSEcure(R) (SIMS Portex, UK) locking needle or a conventional, non-locking technique. Data collection included the incidence of dural click as the spinal needle penetrated the dura mater, presence of cerebrospinal fluid in the spinal needle hub and the number of technical failures with the spinal component. Successful dural punctures with the spinal needle were similar for locking and non-locking needles (99.0 vs. 98.0%; p = 0.55), despite a small but significant reduction in dural click with the locking needle compared with the non-locking technique (97. 0 vs. 84.7%; p < 0.01). Although not statistically significant, there was a higher number of technical failures, mainly due to spinal needle movement, in the non-locking group (9.1 vs. 3.1%; p = 0.08). The locking needle device may be a useful alternative to conventional methods for combined spinal epidural analgesia.     

Management of accidental dural puncture in labour with intrathecal catheters: an analysis of 10 years' experience

The records of 15030 labour epidural blocks were analysed. Seventy-two accidental dural punctures (ADP) were recognised at the time of the procedure. In 34 women an epidural catheter was inserted intrathecally through the Tuohy needle and continuous spinal analgesia provided. In a further 37 women the primary management of ADP was to resite an epidural catheter. One woman who received a microspinal catheter later in labour was excluded from analysis. There were no significant differences in maternal characteristics, quality of labour analgesia and anaesthesia, or mode of delivery between the groups. Three repeat ADPs occurred during attempts to resite the epidural. Two women developed high blocks after epidural resiting, one of whom required intubation and ventilation. There was one high block in the intrathecal catheter group. The incidence of postdural puncture headache was 71% in the intrathecal catheter group compared with 81% in the non-intrathecal catheter group (P = 0.45). Epidural blood patch was performed on 50% of women managed with intrathecal catheters compared with 73% of those managed without (P = 0.08). Following ADP in labour an intrathecal catheter is a simple and effective alternative to resiting an epidural. Recognition of ADP is important as it allows appropriate management avoiding possible complications of administering epidural top-ups in the presence of a dural tear.     

Comparison of continuous spinal and epidural analgesia for pain relief in labour

We have compared continuous spinal analgesia with continuous epidural analgesia for pain relief in labour. Twenty-six women were randomly allocated to receive either epidural 0.25% bupivacaine 5-10 ml via a 20 gauge catheter inserted through a 16 gauge Tuohy needle or intrathecal 0.25% bupivacaine 0.5-1.0 ml via a 32 gauge catheter inserted through a 24 gauge Sprotte needle. This was supplemented with fentanyl 5-10 mcg (spinal) or 1 mcg per kg (epidural) if analgesia was unsatisfactory. Outcome was measured by the success and timing of the procedure, time to analgesia, amount of drug given, visual analogue scoring of pain relief by the patient and an observer and degree of motor block. Onset time and dosage were significantly reduced in the continuous spinal group. Two catheters failed to feed in the spinal group. One catheter became displaced in each group. Pain relief was satisfactory in all patients and none had post-dural puncture headache. Continuous spinal analgesia may offer significant advantages over epidural analgesia but technical difficulties remain with the present equipment. The reasons for the withdrawal of the spinal catheters in the United States of America are discussed.     

Epidural analgesia for labor: safety and success

Safe and successful provision of epidural analgesia for labor requires an understanding of the risks of the technique and attention to detail when performing the technique. The frequency of the commonest complication of epidural analgesia, accidental dural puncture, can probably best be minimized by regular practice of the technique. Some catheters, intended for the epidural space, will find themselves intrathecal, intravascular, or subdural. Although such misplacements probably cannot be prevented, their consequences can be minimized by careful, incremental injection of small doses of local anesthetic. The traditional epidural “test dose” of 45 mg of lidocaine and 15 μg of epinephrine can have undesired effects when injected intrathecally, intravenously, or epidurally. Successful epidural analgesia requires first placing a catheter in the epidural space. The combined spinal epidural technique is a very reliable way to accomplish this task. Subsequently, an appropriate dose of drug must be injected or infused by using an effective delivery system. Continuous infusion of ultra-dilute solutions of local anesthetics and opioids will relieve labor pain in some women, but the frequent need for supplemental medications severely limits their efficacy. Patient-controlled epidural analgesia, using slightly more concentrated local anesthetic solutions produces excellent analgesia with less local anesthetic and less need for rescue medication than continuous infusion techniques.     

Sensorimotor anesthesia and hypotension after subarachnoid block: combined spinal-epidural versus single-shot spinal technique

The extent of the intrathecal compartment depends on the balance between cerebrospinal fluid and subatmospheric epidural pressure. Epidural insertion disrupts this relationship, and the full impact of loss-of-resistance on the qualities of subarachnoid block is unknown. In this study we sought to determine if subarachnoid block, induced by combined spinal-epidural (CSE) using loss-of-resistance to air could render higher sensory anesthesia than single-shot spinal (SSS) when an identical mass of intrathecal anesthetic was injected. Sixty patients, scheduled for minor gynecological procedures, were randomly allocated into three groups all receiving 10 mg of 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine. In the SSS group, intrathecal administration was through a 27-gauge Whitacre spinal needle inserted at the L3-4 level. For the CSE group, the epidural space was identified with an 18-gauge Tuohy needle using loss-of-resistance to 4 mL of air. After intrathecal administration, a 20-gauge catheter was left in the epidural space. No further drug or saline was administered through the catheter. The procedure was repeated in group CSE ((no-catheter)) except without insertion of a catheter. Sensorimotor anesthesia was assessed at regular 2.5-min intervals until T10 was reached. In all aspects, there was no difference between CSE and CSE ((no-catheter)). Peak sensory level in SSS was lower than CSE and CSE ((no-catheter)) (median T5 [max T3-min T6] versus (T3 [T1-4] and (T3 [T2-5]) (P < 0.01). During the first 10 min postblock, dermatomal thoracic block was the lowest in SSS (P < 0.05). Time for regression of sensory level to T10 was also shortest in SSS. Hypotension, ephedrine use and period of motor recovery were more pronounced in CSE and CSE ((no-catheter)). We conclude that subarachnoid block induced by CSE produces greater sensorimotor anesthesia and prolonged recovery compared with SSS. There is also a more frequent incidence of hypotension and vasoconstrictor use despite using identical doses and baricity of local anesthetic. IMPLICATIONS: This study confirms that induction of subarachnoid block by a combined-spinal epidural technique produces a greater sensorimotor anesthesia and results in prolonged recovery when compared with a single-shot spinal technique. There is a more frequent incidence of hypotension and vasoconstrictor administration despite identical doses of intrathecally administered local anesthetic.     

A comparison of epidural and cerebrospinal fluid glucose in parturients at term: an observational study

BackgroundDetecting inadvertent dural puncture during labour epidural insertion can be difficult when using a loss of resistance to saline technique. Testing fluid for glucose that leaks from a Tuohy needle may confirm the presence of cerebrospinal fluid and infer inadvertent dural puncture. This study compared the glucose content of intrathecal fluid obtained during spinal anaesthesia for elective caesarean delivery with that of fluid from a Tuohy needle or epidural catheter when establishing epidural analgesia for labour.MethodsWomen aged ?18 years undergoing elective caesarean delivery and labouring parturients who requested epidural analgesia were recruited prospectively in a tertiary referral centre over a three-month period. Fluid was collected into a sterile container either during spinal anaesthesia or from a labour epidural needle. Glucose content was evaluated using a bedside blood glucometer and laboratory colorimetric analyzer.ResultsOf the 118 women approached, 115 participated. All 40 women having spinal anaesthesia and 2/75 (2.7%) women having epidural analgesia, in whom inadvertent dural puncture was subsequently confirmed, had fluid samples testing positive for glucose. Median [range] laboratory glucose readings were 2.9 [1.3–5.1] mmol/L for cerebrospinal fluid and <0.3 mmol/L in fluid that leaked from a Tuohy needle (P = 0.0001).ConclusionWhen using a loss of resistance to saline technique for epidural catheter placement, bedside glucometer testing of fluid leaking from the epidural needle may be of value in the early detection of inadvertent dural puncture.