EPILOR VS CONVENTIONAL LOR TECHNIQUE, IDENTIFICATION OF EPIDURAL SPACE.

Abstract

Background: The epidural technique is one of the neuraxial techniques widely used for providing anesthesia for surgical operation, postoperative pain control, acute or chronic pain management, and obstetric analgesia. The loss of resistance (LOR) technique is the most commonly used method for identifying the epidural space. Present study was aimed to compare loss of resistance technique between EPILOR syringe and conventional LOR syringe for identifying the epidural space.

Material and Methods: Present study was single-center, prospective, randomised study, conducted in patients of ASA Status I and II, of both sexes, ≥16 years of age, BMI < 25 kg/m², coming for elective lower abdominal surgeries. Patients were randomly allocated into two groups, as Group C (received epidural anesthesia by the conventional loss of resistance techniques, n=35) & Group ED (received epidural anesthesia using an EpiLOR syringe, n=35). Results: In present study, ED group showed a lower failure rate & less incidence of more than 1 attempts as compared to group C, difference was statistically significant (p < 0.05). The distance from the skin to the epidural space was not significantly different in both groups. Also epidural depth in L3-L4 interspace & L4-L5 interspace was not significantly different in both groups. Ease score of identification among Operators, Ease score of identification among Observers & Satisfaction score of operat

Background: The epidural technique is one of the neuraxial techniques widely used for providing anesthesia for surgical operation, postoperative pain control, acute or chronic pain management, and obstetric analgesia. The loss of resistance (LOR) technique is the most commonly used method for identifying the epidural space. Present study was aimed to compare loss of resistance technique between EPILOR syringe and conventional LOR syringe for identifying the epidural space.

Material and Methods: Present study was single-center, prospective, randomised study, conducted in patients of ASA Status I and II, of both sexes, ≥16 years of age, BMI < 25 kg/m², coming for elective lower abdominal surgeries. Patients were randomly allocated into two groups, as Group C (received epidural anesthesia by the conventional loss of resistance techniques, n=35) & Group ED (received epidural anesthesia using an EpiLOR syringe, n=35). Results: In present study, ED group showed a lower failure rate & less incidence of more than 1 attempts as compared to group C, difference was statistically significant (p < 0.05). The distance from the skin to the epidural space was not significantly different in both groups. Also epidural depth in L3-L4 interspace & L4-L5 interspace was not significantly different in both groups. Ease score of identification among Operators, Ease score of identification among Observers & Satisfaction score of operators were better in ED group as compared to group C, difference was statistically highly significant (p < 0.001).

Conclusion: Using Epilor syringe with a LOR Balloon indicator syringe compared to the conventional LOR technique is an easy, rapid, and reliable method for identifying the epidural space.

ors were better in ED group as compared to group C, difference was statistically highly significant (p < 0.001).

Conclusion: Using Epilor syringe with a LOR Balloon indicator syringe compared to the conventional LOR technique is an easy, rapid, and reliable method for identifying the epidural space.