Declining randomized clinical trials from Canadian anesthesia departments?

PURPOSE: The research productivity was estimated by publications from anesthesiology departments at Canadian universities over a five-year period, and the articles published were classified into several study designs. METHODS: In this observational study, the MEDLINE database was searched for publications listed by anesthesiology departments at Canadian universities as the primary corresponding source from 2000-2004. Abstracts were reviewed and each publication categorized into its respective methodological design. Impact factors of the journals in which the articles appeared were taken into consideration. "Total impact score" was defined as the total number of articles from a particular journal in a particular year multiplied by the impact factor value. Changes in overall publication numbers over the five-year period were compared and analyzed using Pearson correlation coefficients. RESULTS: Total Canadian anesthesia publications remained constant from 2000-2004. In this five-year time frame, the University of Toronto had the highest number of publications (271) followed by the University of Montreal (86), and McGill University (84). These universities conducted primarily randomized controlled trials (RCTs) whereas smaller Canadian universities mainly published case reports, reviews, and cohort studies. The number of RCTs conducted seems to be decreasing whereas the number of case reports and reviews being published are remaining constant over the five-year period. CONCLUSION: Although overall numbers in anesthesia publications do not suggest a significant decline, the number of RCTs decreased during the years 2000-2004. The quality of anesthesia research appears to be comparable to those in other medical specialties, with larger institutions conducting RCTs and smaller institutions publishing more case reports.

Can continuous low current electrical stimulation distinguish insulated needle position in the epidural and intrathecal spaces in pediatric patients?

BACKGROUND: Muscle twitches elicited with electrical stimulation (6-17 mA) during epidural insertion indicate correct epidural needle placement while muscle twitches at a lower current (<1 mA) may indicate intrathecal needle placement. This study examined whether applying continuous electrical stimulation at 6 mA could indicate needle entry into the epidural space without inadvertently penetrating the intrathecal space. METHODS: After institutional review board (IRB) approval, 10 pediatric patients scheduled for lumbar puncture were studied. Following sedation with propofol, an insulated 24-gauge Pajunck unipolar needle was inserted through an 18-gauge introducer needle placed at the L4-5 interspace. The needle was first connected to a nerve stimulator (6 mA) and advanced. At the first sign of muscle twitching, needle advancement was stopped and the threshold current for motor activity was determined. The current was then turned off, the stylet was removed and the needle checked for cerebrospinal fluid (CSF). If CSF was not present, the needle was advanced into the intrathecal space (as confirmed by the presence of CSF). Ten pediatric patients (ASA II or III) aged 7.8 +/- 4.3 years (2.8-16.0 years) were studied. RESULTS: All patients had two distinguishable threshold currents as the needle advanced. The mean threshold current to elicit muscle twitch in the presumed epidural space was 3.84 +/- 0.99 mA. CSF was not present in any of the patients at this location. The mean threshold current in the intrathecal space was 0.77 +/- 0.32 mA. The average estimated distance from the first threshold location to the intrathecal space was 3 mm. All muscle twitches were at the L3-5 myotomes. Nine muscle twitches were unilateral and one was bilateral. CONCLUSIONS: Monitoring with an insulated needle with electrical stimulation at 6 mA may prevent unintentional placement of epidural needles into the intrathecal space.

Threshold current of an insulated needle in the intrathecal space in pediatric patients.

A threshold current of <1 mA has been suggested to be sufficient to produce a motor response to electrical stimulation in the intrathecal space. We designed this study to determine the threshold current needed to elicit motor activity for an insulated needle in the intrathecal space. Twenty pediatric patients aged 7.3 +/- 3.9 yr scheduled for lumbar puncture were recruited. After sedation with propofol, patients were turned to the lateral position and an 18-gauge or 20-gauge introducer needle was placed at the L4-5 level through which an insulated 24-gauge Pajunck unipolar needle (with a Sprotte tip and stylet) was inserted. The needle was advanced into the intrathecal space as suggested by the presence of a "pop." At this point, a nerve stimulator was attached to the insulated needle and the current was gradually increased until motor activity was evident. The needle hub was checked for cerebrospinal fluid. If cerebrospinal fluid was not present, the needle was advanced further until cerebrospinal fluid was present. The threshold current was retested. The mean current in the intrathecal space required to elicit a motor response was 0.6 +/- 0.3 mA (range, 0.1-1 mA). In 19 patients, the twitches were observed at the L4-5 myotomes and 1 patient had twitches at L2. Twitches were observed unilaterally in 19 children and bilaterally in one child. This confirms the hypothesis that the threshold current in the intrathecal space is <1 mA and that it differs significantly from the threshold currents reported for electrical stimulation in the epidural space.