Comparison of two types of combined spinal-epidural sets in terms of catheter positioning: reinforced catheter vs. non-reinforced catheter

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study is to examine the usefulness of a combined spinal-epidural set with reinforced catheter (CombiSpeed(R), Ace Medical, Seoul, Korea) as compared with the non-reinforced catheter (PORTEX(R), Smiths medical, Brisbane, Australia) in terms of catheter positioning and clinical aspects of anesthesia. METHODS: One hundred and two patients scheduled for regional anesthesia were enrolled in this study. They were allocated randomly either into group A (CombiSpeed(R)) or group P (PORTEX(R)). Vital signs and the levels of sensory and motor block were measured every 5 minutes. Ease of insertion and the removal of the catheter were assessed, so was the incidence of venous cannulation and paresthesia during epidural catheter insertions. After the placement of epidural catheter, we checked the location of catheter by radiography and measured in a clockwise angle from the midline to catheter tip (angle X). In laboratory, tensile strength of the two products was measured by using tonometry. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between groups in intra-operative vital sign, block level and ease of catheter insertion and removal. No difference was observed in angle X between the groups (group A: 93.6 +/- 129.5degrees, group P: 124.5 +/- 127.7degrees, P = 0.22). There were no complications such as paresthesia or venous cannulation during catheter insertion. The tensile strength was higher in group A (group A: 1.70 +/- 0.05 kg, group P: 1.30 +/- 0.03 kg, P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: CombiSpeed(R) is as useful as PORTEX(R) in terms of ease for catheter placement, positioning of catheter tip and clinical aspects of anesthesia.

Erratum: Comparison of two types of combined spinal-epidural sets in terms of catheter positioning: reinforced catheter vs. non-reinforced catheter

We found an error in our published article.