Skip to main content
. 2017 Apr 7;2017(4):CD010807. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010807.pub2

Schultz 1996.

Methods

  • Design: parallel‐group (2 arms)

  • Country: Austria

  • Multisite: no

  • International: no

  • Needle type design used: Quincke vs Atraucan

  • Needle diameter used: 27 vs 26

  • Procedure: subarachnoid anaesthesia

  • Number of attempts (1 attempt): 87% vs 86%

  • Site of the puncture: L2‐3

  • Training level of those who administered the puncture: unknown

  • Median or paramedian technique: median approach

  • Type of anaesthesia: 0.5% bupivacaine, 4% mepivacaine or lidocaine 5%

  • Patient position: sitting position
Participants 1. 388 ASA I‐III patients, aged 15 to 80 years, who were scheduled for subumbilical surgery, were enrolled
Exclusion criteria: obstetric patients
Patients randomized to:

  • 27 G Quincke group: 202 patients (52.06%)

  • 26 G Atraucan group: 186 patients (47.94%)


2. No patients were excluded from further analysis
3. Main characteristics of patients:

  • Males (number): 27 G Quincke group: 85; 26 G Atraucan group: 86
Interventions

  • 27 G Quincke: Becton Dickinson, Rutherford, NJ

  • 26 G Atraucan needle: Braun, Melsungen, Germany


Both needles were used with a 20 G introducer to facilitate puncture
Outcomes Outcomes were not classified as primary or secondary

  1. Headache (PDPH)

  2. Severity of headache

  3. Back pain
Notes

  1. Trial registration: not stated

  2. Funder: not stated

  3. Role of funder: not stated

  4. A priori sample size estimation: no

  5. Conducted: not stated

  6. Declared conflicts of interest: not stated
Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to score this item as low or high risk of bias. Quote: "the patients were randomly assigned" (page 462)
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to score this item as low or high risk of bias
Blinding of participants (performance bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to score this item as low or high risk of bias
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes Unclear risk Insufficient information to score this item as low or high risk of bias
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk No patients were lost to follow‐up
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk All patient‐important outcomes were reported
Other bias Low risk No other biases were identified