Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow E-Letters: Submit a response to the article
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (10)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Dickson, MAS.
Right arrow Articles by McClure, J. H.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Dickson, MAS.
Right arrow Articles by McClure, J. H.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

British Journal of Anaesthesia, Vol 79, Issue 3 297-300, Copyright © 1997 by The Board of Management and Trustees of the British Journal of Anaesthesia

CLINICAL INVESTIGATIONS

Comparison of single, end-holed and multi-orifice extradural catheters when used for continuous infusion of local anaesthetic during labour

MAS. Dickson, C. Moores and J. H. McClure
Department of Anaesthetics, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, Lauriston Place, Edinburgh

Single, end-holed and multi-orifice extradural catheters were compared in terms of efficacy and complications when used for infusion of 0.1% bupivacaine during labour. In this study of 364 patients there was no difference in unilateral block after an initial bolus dose (18 (11.5%) for single, end-holed and 16 (10.9%) for multi-orifice catheters). Unilateral block recurred with seven (4.0%) single, end-holed and with eight (4.8%) multi-orifice catheters. Unilateral blocks, arising for the first time during infusion of local anaesthetic, occurred significantly more frequently when single, end-holed catheters were used (29 (16.4%)) compared with multi-orifice catheters (14 (8.4%)) (P < 0.05).
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Br J AnaesthHome page
J. E. Spiegel, A. Vasudevan, Y. Li, and P. E. Hess
A randomized prospective study comparing two flexible epidural catheters for labour analgesia
Br. J. Anaesth., September 1, 2009; 103(3): 400 - 405.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Anesth. Analg.Home page
J. M. Mhyre, M. L. V. H. Greenfield, L. C. Tsen, and L. S. Polley
A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials That Evaluate Strategies to Avoid Epidural Vein Cannulation During Obstetric Epidural Catheter Placement
Anesth. Analg., April 1, 2009; 108(4): 1232 - 1242.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Anesth. Analg.Home page
B. C. H. Tsui and C. K. C. Sze
An In Vitro Comparison of the Electrical Conducting Properties of Multiport Versus Single-Port Epidural Catheters for the Epidural Stimulation Test
Anesth. Analg., November 1, 2005; 101(5): 1528 - 1530.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.