OBJECTIVE: Globally medical management of labour and birth has significantly increased, with epidurals attributed to the cascade of interventions.
BACKGROUND: There are few randomised control trials that evaluate the effectiveness of antenatal education programs. A previous trial at two Australian hospitals found an antenatal program of integrative complementary therapies significantly reduced rates of interventions for low-risk primiparous women.
OBJECTIVE: To reduce rates of intervention in labour and birth, with a primary outcome of decreased epidural use during labour.
METHODS: Low to moderate risk primiparous women were randomised at 24-36 weeks\' gestation to the intervention group and standard care, or standard care alone. Clinical and psychological measures were analysed by intention-to-treat. Trial registration ACTRN12618001353280 FINDINGS: In total, 178 women participated (n = 88 intervention, n = 90 Standard care), demographic characteristics were similar between groups, almost half (49 %) reported a pre-existing medical condition, and wellbeing scores fell within the average range. Epidural use was lower in the intervention group (47.7% vs 56.7 %) with higher rates of vaginal birth (52.3% vs 42.2 %), however, no statistical differences for birth outcomes were found between groups. Attitude to childbirth scores were statistically higher for women who attended the intervention (59.1 vs 54.3 p00.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Higher psychometric scores demonstrated women in the intervention group felt an increased sense of coping and control. Antenatal education that includes complementary therapies can reduce fear and improve attitudes about childbirth.
CONCLUSIONS: Replicating study protocols enabled the generalisability of findings to a more diverse group of women, and data will contribute to a larger meta-analysis design to detect smaller treatment effects for operative birth.

UNASSIGNED: To evaluate the effectiveness of cervical transforaminal epidural steroid injection (CTFESI) for the treatment of unilateral cervical radicular pain.
UNASSIGNED: Single-group prospective cohort study.
UNASSIGNED: Outcomes included ≥50% reductions in Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) for arm pain, ≥30% Neck Disability Index (NDI-5) improvement, health-related quality of life (EQ-5D), global improvement (PGIC), personal goal achievement (COMBI), Chronic Pain Sleep Index (CPSI), and healthcare utilization at one, three, six, and 12 months. Data analysis included descriptive statistics with the calculations of 95% confidence intervals (CIs), contingency table analysis, and multilevel logistic regression (LR) analysis, including a worst-case (WC) sensitivity analysis in which missing data were treated as treatment failure. Participants who were treated surgically were considered failures in the categorical analyses.
UNASSIGNED: 33 consecutively enrolled participants (63.6% females, 51.2 ± 12.2 years of age, BMI 28.3 ± 4.5 kg/m2) were analyzed. Success rates for ≥50% reduction in NRS for arm pain at one, three, six and 12 months were 57.6% (95% CI 40.8-72.8%), 71.9% (95% CI 54.6-84.4%), 64.5% (95% CI 46.9-78.9%), and 64.5% (95% CI 46.9-78.9%). Success rates for ≥30% improvement in NDI-5 were 60.6% (95% CI 43.7-75.3%), 68.8% (95% CI 51.4-82.0%), 61.3% (95% CI 43.8-76.3%), and 71.0% (95% CI 53.4-83.9%). In WC analysis, success rates for ≥50% arm NRS and NDI-5 were 0-4.3% lower between 1 and 12 months. PGIC scores were at least \"much improved\" or \"very much improved,\" in 48.4-65.6% of participants between 1 and 12 months. 6.1%, 6.1%, and 3.0% had one, two, or three repeat injections, respectively. 18.2% of participants underwent surgery by 12 months. Participants showed significant improvements in arm NRS and NDI-5 after treatment (p < 0.05), multilevel logistic regression models showed no significant decline in improvements across the follow-up time points (p > 0.05).
UNASSIGNED: Statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in pain and disability were observed after CTFESI for up to 12 months in individuals with unilateral cervical radicular pain.

UNASSIGNED: The first aim of this study was to investigate the analgesic efficacy of US-guided caudal epidural pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) stimulation in patients with failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS); the second was to evaluate the effects on opioid use, disability, quality of life and patient satisfaction.
UNASSIGNED: Thirty patients with > 6-month history of chronic leg pain of >4 on a numerical rating scale (NRS) due to FBSS were included. These patients had unsatisfactory responses to conventional treatments and at least two epidural steroid injections. PRF stimulation with ultrasound guidance was administered to the caudal epidural space. NRS was evaluated before treatment, at 2, 4, and 8 weeks after intervention. Short Form-36 (SF-36) for health-related quality of life, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), changes in opioid use and patient satisfaction were evaluated at baseline and 8 weeks after treatment.
UNASSIGNED: Mean NRS scores were significantly lower at weeks 2, 4 and 8 compared to baseline (P ​< ​0.001). There were significant improvements in SF-36 and ODI scores compared with pretreatment (P ​< ​0.05). It was found that 31% and 13% of opioid users, respectively, discontinued and tapered off their opioid medication. 40% of patients were overall satisfied with the treatment.
UNASSIGNED: In a cohort of patients with FBSS, caudal epidural PRF stimulation provided pain relief in 36% of treated subjects. Patients also experienced significant improvement in functionality, quality of life and opioid use. This technique can be considered as an alternative before considering neuromodulation, opiate therapy, or reoperation in patients with FBSS.

UNASSIGNED: Low back pain of disc origin is common yet challenging to treat. Intradiscal platelet rich plasma (PRP) has been advocated, but is associated with risk of discitis. Epidural PRP is less invasive and avoids this risk. Few studies exist evaluating effectiveness and safety of epidural PRP for discogenic low back pain without radiculopathy and the follow-up of the studies tends to be short.
UNASSIGNED: Prospectively evaluate for 12 months the effectiveness of PRP epidural injections for patients with low back pain without radiculopathy, suspected to be of disc origin.
UNASSIGNED: 11 consecutive patients with refractory low back pain suspected to be of disc origin (compatible clinical assessment; negative lumbosacral medial branch blocks (MBBs) and/or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with high intensity zone (HIZ), Modic 1 or 2 changes) participated. Each underwent one (n = 5) or two (n = 6) epidural injections (caudal or interlaminar). The PRP was leukocyte/red cell depleted with an average platelet concentration of ∼2X whole blood. Numerical rating scale (NRS), Pain Disability Quality-Of-Life Questionnaire (PDQQ) score, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score, effect on analgesic intake, treatment satisfaction and endorsement were recorded prior to and at 3, 6 and 12-months post-treatment.
UNASSIGNED: Significant improvements in pain and disability were documented post-treatment. Pre-, 3, 6, and 12-month post mean(sd) NRS scores were 7.8(1.8), 5.8(2.7), 5.1(2.5), 4.9(2.8) respectively (F = 7.2; p = 0.002). At 12 months post PRP epidural, the mean improvement in NRS was 36%, 36% had experienced ≥50% pain relief (95% confidence interval (CI): 2%, 70%), and 73% achieved minimal clinically important differences (MCID) (95% CI: 41%, 100%). Similar magnitude improvements in disability (PDQQ and ODI) were documented. At 1-year post, 50% of analgesic users had reduced intake, 91% were satisfied with the treatment and would recommend the procedure to family and friends. No complications were reported.
UNASSIGNED: This pilot project suggests that PRP epidural injections provide modest yet significant improvements in pain and disability that lasts at least 12 months in patients with low back pain suspected to be of disc origin. Additional research including larger sample size and robust study design is encouraged.

UNASSIGNED: Recent studies have shown that dexmedetomidine can be safely used in peripheral nerve blocks and spinal anesthesia. Epidural administration of dexmedetomidine produces analgesia and sedation, prolongs motor and sensory block time, extends postoperative analgesia, and reduces the need for rescue analgesia. This investigation seeks to identify the median effective concentration (EC50) of ropivacaine for epidural motor blockade, and assess how incorporating varying doses of dexmedetomidine impacts this EC50 value.
UNASSIGNED: Prospective, double-blind, up-down sequential allocation study.
UNASSIGNED: Operating room, post-anesthesia care unit, and general ward.
UNASSIGNED: One hundred and fifty patients were allocated into five groups in a randomized, double-blinded manner as follows: NR (normal saline combined with ropivacaine) group, RD0.25 (0.25 μg/kg dexmedetomidine combined with ropivacaine) group, RD0.5 (0.5 μg/kg dexmedetomidine combined with ropivacaine) group, RD0.75 (0.75 μg/kg dexmedetomidine combined with ropivacaine) group, RD1.0 (1.0 μg/kg dexmedetomidine combined with ropivacaine) group. The concentration of epidural ropivacaine for the first patient in each group was 0.5%. Following administration, the patients were immediately placed in a supine position for observation, and the lower limb motor block was assessed every 5 min using the modified Bromage score within 30 min after drug administration. According to the sequential method, the concentration of ropivacaine in the next patient was adjusted according to the reaction of the previous patient: effective motor block was defined as the modified Bromage score > 0 within 30 min after epidural administration. If the modified Bromage score of the previous patient was >0 within 30 min after drug administration, the concentration of ropivacaine in the next patient was decreased by 1 gradient. Conversely, if the score did not exceed 0, the concentration of ropivacaine in the next patient was increased by 1 gradient. The up-down sequential allocation method and probit regression were used to calculate the EC50 of epidural ropivacaine.
UNASSIGNED: Adverse events, hemodynamic changes, demographic data and clinical characteristics.
UNASSIGNED: The EC50 of epidural ropivacaine required to achieve motor block was 0.677% (95% CI, 0.622-0.743%) in the NR group, 0.624% (95% CI, 0.550-0.728%) in the RD0.25 group, 0.549% (95% CI, 0.456-0.660%) in the RD0.5 group, 0.463% (95% CI, 0.408-0.527%) in the RD0.75 group, and 0.435% (95% CI, 0.390-0.447%) in the RD1.0 group. The EC50 of the NR group and the RD0.25 group were significantly higher than that of the RD0.75 and the RD1.0 groups, and the EC50 of the RD0.5 group was significantly higher than that of the RD1.0 group.
UNASSIGNED: The EC50 of epidural ropivacaine required to achieve motor block was 0.677% in the NR group, 0.624% in the RD0.25 group, 0.549% in the RD0.5 group, 0.463% in the RD0.75 group, and 0.435% in the RD1.0 group. Dexmedetomidine as an adjuvant for ropivacaine dose-dependently reduce the EC50 of epidural ropivacaine for motor block and shorten the onset time of epidural ropivacaine block. The optimal dose of dexmedetomidine combined with ropivacaine for epidural anesthesia was 0.5 μg/kg.

Introduction Persistent postoperative pain leads to impaired patient recovery and delays in discharge of patients. The aim was to compare the efficacy of 0.5% bupivacaine to two varying concentrations of ropivacaine, specifically 0.5% and 0.75%, along with fentanyl as a continuous epidural infusion in providing adequate pain relief for patients subjected to infraumbilical surgeries. Materials and methods A prospective randomized comparative study was carried out on 150 patients and was divided into three groups, namely group B, group R, and group RP. Group B indicates (0.5% bupivacaine), group R means (0.5% ropivacaine), and finally, group RP means (0.75% ropivacaine); the three groups had 50 patients each. Group B was administered an epidural infusion of bupivacaine at a concentration of 0.5%, group R was given 0.5% ropivacaine, and group RP was treated with 0.75% ropivacaine; all three groups included 40 mcg fentanyl. The duration of the motor and sensory blockade and the time needed for the first rescue analgesia after the stoppage of epidural infusion were assessed in all three groups. The data were statistically analyzed using the ANOVA, \"post hoc Tukey,\" and chi-square tests. Results Comparison of the duration of motor and sensory blockade among all three groups showed that group RP (0.75% ropivacaine with 2 mcg/cc fentanyl) had the longest duration of 328.8 and 406 minutes, and the difference was statistically significant (p < 0.001). Comparison of the time of stoppage of epidural infusion to the requirement of first rescue analgesia showed that the group that received 0.75% ropivacaine with 40 mcg fentanyl had the highest value of 258.6 minutes and was statistically significant (p < 0.001). Conclusion Epidural intraoperative infusion of 0.75% ropivacaine with fentanyl offers better postoperative pain relief as compared to both 0.5% bupivacaine and 0.5% ropivacaine with fentanyl.

Background and Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate the mid-term effectiveness and safety of a combined ultrasound (US) and fluoroscopy (FL)-guided approach in comparison to US-guided and FL-guided caudal epidural steroid injections (CESI) for treating unilateral lower lumbar radicular pain. Materials and Methods: A total of 154 patients who underwent CESI between 2018 and 2022 were included. Patients were categorized into three groups based on the guidance method: combined US and FL (n = 51), US-guided (n = 51), and FL-guided (n = 52). The study design was retrospective case-controlled, utilizing patient charts and standardized forms to assess clinical outcomes, adverse events, complications during the procedures. Results: In all groups, Oswestry Disability Index and Verbal Numeric Scale scores improved at 1, 3, and 6 months after the last injection, with no significant differences between groups (p < 0.05). The treatment success rate at all time points was also similar among the groups. Logistic regression analysis showed that injection method, cause, sex, age, number of injections, and pain duration did not independently predict treatment success. Blood was aspirated before injection in 2% (n = 1), 13.5% (n = 7), and 4% (n = 2) of patients in the combined US and FL groups, FL-guided groups, and US-guided groups, respectively. Intravascular contrast spread was detected in one patient in the combined method groups and seven in the FL-guided groups. Conclusions: When comparing pain reduction and functional improvement, there was no significant difference between the three methods. The combined method took less time compared to using FL alone. The combined approach also showed a lower occurrence of intravascular injection compared to using FL alone. Moreover, blood vessels at the injection site can be identified with an ultrasound using the combined method. Given these advantages, it might be advisable to prioritize the combined US- and FL-guided therapy when administering CESI for patients with unilateral lumbar radicular pain.

BACKGROUND:  Sequential combined spinal epidural anesthesia (CSEA) is probably the greatest advancement in the central neuraxial block in this decade for geriatric patients due to the potential advantages of both spinal and epidural anesthesia. This study was designed to compare the clinical effects of sequential CSEA versus spinal and epidural anesthesia in geriatric patients undergoing transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP).
METHODS:  Ninety patients aged 65 to 80 years were randomly allocated into three groups of 30 each. Group A (n=30) patients were administered spinal anesthesia with 2.5 ml of 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine, group B (n=30) received epidural anesthesia with 15 ml of 0.5% isobaric bupivacaine, and group C (n=30) received sequential CSEA with 1 ml of 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine and 6 ml of 0.5% isobaric bupivacaine given through epidural route to extend the block up to T10. Patients were observed for hemodynamic parameters, sensory and motor block, total dose required to establish the desired level, and patient satisfaction score.
RESULTS: None of the patients were excluded in the study. Group A patients reported rapid onset of sensory block (3.08±11.57 minutes) compared to group B (11.57±1.48 minutes), and group C (5.47±1.25 minutes). The onset of motor block was expeditious in group A (8.08±1.0 minutes) compared to group B (20.33±1.86 minutes) and group C (15.53±1.31 minutes). Patients in group B had maximum hemodynamic stability but with delayed onset and were technically more complex than group A. Patients in group C were hemodynamically more stable than group A. They had a faster onset of action with decreased doses of local anesthetic drug required compared to group B.
CONCLUSIONS: Sequential CSEA is a safe, effective, and reliable technique that combines the advantages of both spinal and epidural while minimizing their disadvantages. It has the advantage of stable hemodynamic parameters along with the provision of prolongation analgesia for geriatric patients undergoing TURP surgery.

Background/Objectives: Atelocollagen is used for soft tissue repair and reconstruction by replacing defective or damaged muscles, membranes, ligaments, and tendons. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of additional paraspinal intramuscular injection of atelocollagen on lumbar epidural steroid injection for reducing pain and improving functional capacity of patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP). Methods: We retrospectively enrolled 608 consecutive patients with CLBP who received lumbar epidural steroid injection with or without additional paraspinal intramuscular injection of atelocollagen. The Numerical Rating Scale and the Oswestry Disability Index were used to assess pain and functional capacity, respectively, before the procedure, and three months after the injection. Also, we analyzed the relationship between the additional paraspinal intramuscular injection of atelocollagen and the success rate. Results: Both Numerical Rating Scale and the Oswestry Disability Index scores were significantly reduced in both groups at three months after injection. However, there was a significant difference between the two groups. Furthermore, the success rate was significantly higher in the additional paraspinal intramuscular injection of atelocollagen group. Conclusions: This study\'s results showed that additional paraspinal intramuscular injection of atelocollagen on lumbar epidural steroid injection reduced pain and improved functional capacity for patients with CLBP. Therefore, the paraspinal intramuscular injection of atelocollagen may be a promising option for the treatment of patients with CLBP.

UNASSIGNED: Epidural nonopioid adjuvants also reduce local anesthetic use. We aimed to test the hypothesis that, compared with the present standard fentanyl, the hourly consumption of local anesthetic was at least as good when dexmedetomidine or esketamine was combined with local anesthetic for patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA).
UNASSIGNED: A total of 120 laboring nulliparous subjects requiring labor analgesia were recruited for the final statistical analysis. Subjects were randomized to receive 0.075 % ropivacaine added with one of three equivalent adjuvants: 0.4 μg/mL fentanyl, 0.4 μg/mL dexmedetomidine, or 1.0 mg/mL esketamine. The primary outcome was hourly ropivacaine consumption. Compared with the fentanyl group, a 20 % difference in hourly local anesthetic consumption between the dexmedetomidine and esketamine groups was considered a clinical difference (non-inferiority margin).
UNASSIGNED: The hourly ropivacaine consumption of the fentanyl group was 12.4 (95 % confidence interval CI 11.2 to 13.6) ml/h, so the prespecified non-inferiority limit was 2.5 ml/h. The hourly ropivacaine consumption of the fentanyl group was not inferior to that of the dexmedetomidine group (12.4 ml/h vs. 11.9 ml/h, risk difference, 0.5; 95 % confidence interval CI, -1.0 to 2.0, meeting criteria for non-inferiority). However, the hourly ropivacaine consumption of the esketamine group was 14.3 ml/h, and that of the fentanyl group was 12.4 ml/h (risk difference, 1.9, 95 % CI, 0.2 to 3.6), failing to confirm non-inferiority with a non-inferiority margin of 20 %. The incidence of pruritus was highest in the fentanyl group, whereas the occurrence of mild dizziness was highest in the esketamine group.
UNASSIGNED: In setting of the conditions of this study, epidural dexmedetomidine was non-inferior compared with epidural fentanyl in combination with ropivacaine for PCEA during labor. Meanwhile, we failed to establish the non-inferiority of epidural esketamine compared with epidural fentanyl in combination with ropivacaine for labor analgesia.