PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
February 2, 2026Journal of Anaesthesiology Clinical Pharmacology0 citationsOpen Access

Ultrasound-guided midline versus paramedian approach for combined spinal–epidural anesthesia: A randomized controlled study

View Full Paper
DSDivya SethiAJArinjay JainGGGarima Garg

Key Points

  • This research evaluates the effectiveness of ultrasound-assisted midline versus paramedian approaches for combined spinal–epidural anesthesia.
  • Randomized controlled study design
  • Eighty ASA grade I/II patients enrolled
  • Patients divided into midline (Group M) and paramedian (Group P) groups
  • Primary outcome measured was first-pass success rate
  • Secondary outcomes included second-pass success rate, needle insertions, and image quality.
  • First-pass success rates were similar: 26.31% for Group P vs 34.21% for Group M (P = 0.469)
  • Fewer needle insertions in Group P compared to Group M (P = 0.021)
  • Number of redirections was comparable between groups (P = 0.607)
  • USG scan time was shorter for Group P (183 sec vs 224 sec, P < 0.0001)
  • Procedure times were similar across both groups (P = 0.297).

Abstract

Abstract Background and Aims: Neuraxial ultrasound (USG) can increase the success rate of neuraxial blocks, such as combined spinal–epidural (CSE). The two commonly practiced approaches for CSE are midline and paramedian. However, only a few studies have compared the USG-assisted midline and paramedian approaches. Therefore, we planned this study to evaluate and compare the efficacy of USG-assisted paramedian and midline approach for CSE anesthesia. Material and Methods: Eighty american society of anesthesiologists (ASA) grade I/II patients undergoing elective orthopedic surgery under CSE anesthesia were enrolled. Patients were allocated to Group M (midline) or Group P (paramedian group) for the USG-assisted CSE block. The primary outcome was the first-pass success rate. The secondary outcomes were the second-pass success rate, the number of needle insertions, the number of needle redirections, image quality score, scan time, and procedure time. Results: The first-pass success rate was statistically comparable for Groups P and M (26.31% vs. 34.21%; P = 0.469). The number of needle insertions in Group P was statistically lower than in Group M ( P = 0.021), and the number of redirections was statistically comparable between the two groups ( P = 0.607). The image quality score was comparable for both groups. The scan time required for USG was statistically less in Group P than in Group M (224 sec vs 183 sec, P < 0.0001). The procedure time was, however, statistically comparable between the two groups ( P = 0.297). Conclusions: USG-assisted midline and paramedian approaches for CSE have comparable first-needle pass success rates.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Sethi et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6980fe13c1c9540dea80fd60https://doi.org/10.4103/joacp.joacp_277_25
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Ultrasound-assisted spinal anesthesia: A randomized comparison between midline and paramedian approaches2022 · 19 citations
  2. 2Predictors of successful neuraxial block: a prospective study2002 · 190 citations
  3. 3THE COMBINED SPINAL-EPIDURAL TECHNIQUE2000 · 114 citations
  4. 4Incidence of postspinal headache and low backache following the median and paramedian approaches in spinal anesthesia2017 · 16 citations
  5. 5The ultrasound‐assisted paraspinous approach to lumbar neuraxial blockade: a simplified technique in patients with difficult anatomy2015 · 25 citations