SQUATTING POSITION VERSUS HAMSTRING STRETCH POSITION FOR EASE OF INDUCTION OF SPINAL ANAESTHESIA: RANDOMIZED CLINICAL TRIAL
Main Article Content
Keywords
Spinal anaesthesia, Squatting Position, Hamstring Stretch Position, spinal needle
Abstract
Background: The position of a patient is one of the major factor contributing to the success of neuraxial block. Poor positioning may cause repeated spinal needle insertion and increase the risk of back pain, post dural puncture headache, hematoma and neural trauma. Aim: To compare the Squatting position versus hamstring stretch position for ease of induction of spinal anaesthesia. Methods: A profile of 80 patients with ASA class 1 or 2 young (Age between 18-60years) was selected who were scheduled for surgical procedures under spinal anaesthesia in the Department of Anesthesiology Maharishi Markandeshwar Institute of Medical Sciences and Research, Mullana, Ambala after the institutional ethical committee approval and written, informed consent from the patient were included in this randomized clinical trial. Results: Both groups were comparable with regard to demographic details Both groups have similar frequency and percentage of patients, and the (p-value >0.05). There was a statistically significant difference in Group A and statistically no significant difference was observed in Group B in terms of the ease of identifying intervertebral space. In Group A, ease of identifying intervertebral space in 82% of patients was found to be easy and in 18% it was found to be difficult, while in Group B, 72% found was easy and 28% found was difficult. In Group A number of times needle bone contact seen was easy in 65% of patients whereas in Group B number of times needle bone contact seen easy was 42%. It tells us that Group A position ( Squatting Position ) is better than Group B position (Hamstring Stretch Position ). Conclusion: Our study's results suggest that adopting the squatting position is more effective than the hamstring stretch position when it comes to identifying intervertebral space, reducing the frequency of needle-bone contact, and ensuring greater patient comfort.
References
2. Khobragade P, Mendhe H, Ramteke K. Comparison of sitting position and prone position for ease of spinal needle insertion in patients undergoing spinal anaesthesia
3. Afolayan JM, Areo PO, Adegun PT, Ogundipe KO, Filani AB. Comparison of ease of induction of spinal anaesthesia in sitting with legs parallel on the table versus traditional sitting position. Pan African Medical Journal. 2017;28(1).
4. Mohammadi SS, Hassani M, Marashi SM. Comparing the squatting position and traditional sitting position for ease of spinal needle placement: a randomized clinical trial. Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine. 2014 May;4(2).
5. El-Kadi GA, Mohamed RA, Fares AM. A Comparative Study between the Performing Spinal Anesthesia in Sitting versus Lateral Position on Patient Hemodynamics. The Egyptian Journal of Hospital Medicine. 2018 Oct 1;73(1):5748-52.
6. Mohammadi SS, Piri M, Khajehnasiri A. Comparing three different modified sitting positions for ease of spinal needle insertion in patients undergoing spinal anesthesia. Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine. 2017 Oct;7(5).
7. Fisher KS, Arnholt AT, Douglas ME, Vandiver SL, Nguyen DH. A randomized trial of the traditional sitting position versus the hamstring stretch position for labor epidural needle placement. Anesthesia & Analgesia. 2009 Aug 1;109(2):532-4.
8. Baig T. Comparison of 25 gauge cutting with noncutting needles for post dural puncture headache in obstetric patients. Anesthesia & Clinical Research. 2014;5(10):1-3.