Minimum current requirement for confirming the localization of an epiradicular catheter placement.
10.4097/kjae.2012.63.3.238
- Author:
Ji Seon JEONG
1
;
Jae Chol SHIM
;
Jae Hang SHIM
;
Dong Won KIM
;
Min Serk KANG
Author Information
1. Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, School of Medicine, Hanyang University, Seoul, Korea. jcshim@hanyang.ac.kr
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Epidural;
Epidural stimulation;
Epiradicular;
Threshold current
- MeSH:
Adult;
Catheterization;
Catheters;
Contracts;
Electric Stimulation;
Epidural Space;
Extremities;
Fees and Charges;
Humans;
Intention
- From:Korean Journal of Anesthesiology
2012;63(3):238-244
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
BACKGROUND: Based on the necessity to confirm the epiradicular catheter misplacement, epiradicular threshold current for the confirmation of catheter tip localization is required. METHODS: Thirty-four adult patients with low extremity radiating pain were to receive epiradicular catheterization at the lumbosacral level. The epidural space was accessed percutaneously in cranial to caudal direction. A metal coil-reinforced epidural catheter was inserted and advanced caudolaterally toward the target neural foramen until the catheter tip was located below the bisection of pedicle. The electrical stimulation was performed after catheter placement in epidural and epiradicular space. Using the constant current nerve stimulator, the stimulating current was increased from 0 to 5 mA (pulse width of 0.3 ms; frequency of 2 Hz) until adequate motor contraction was evident. The threshold current for motor response with epidural space (EDmA) and epiradicular space (ERmA) placement were recorded upon electrical stimulation. In addition, the threshold charge for motor response with epidural (EDnC) and epiradicular (ERnC) placement were recorded. RESULTS: Of 34 catheters intentionally placed in the epiradicular space, ERmA was 0.53 +/- 0.48 mA. The ERnC was significantly lower than EDnC (P < 0.05). The EDmA and ERmA were below 1 mA in 3 patients and above 1 mA in 4 patients, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that, threshold current for motor response seems to be lower for epiradicular compared with epidural placement, although we were not able to directly investigate the epidural threshold current. The threshold current of epiradicular space overlap that in the epidural space.
