JOURNAL HOME CME HOME THIS MONTH PAST ISSUES ETOC COLLECTIONS
AUTHORS REVIEWERS EDITORIAL BOARD FEEDBACK RSS HELP
A&A International Anesthesia Research Society
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Anesth Analg 1988; 67:843-848
© 1988 International Anesthesia Research Society
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a colleague
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Munhall, R. J.
Right arrow Articles by Winnie, A. P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Munhall, R. J.
Right arrow Articles by Winnie, A. P.

Incidence and Etiology of Failed Spinal Anesthetics in a University Hospital

A Prospective Study

Robert J. Munhall, MD, Radha Sukhani, MD, and Alon P. Winnie, MD

Received from the Department of Anesthesiology, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois.

Abstract

Two recent retrospective reports on the incidence of failed spinal anesthetics that indicated extremely variable results prompted the present prospective study of 200 consecutive spinal anesthetics to determine the incidence and causes of failed spinal anesthetics.

Tetracaine was the spinal anesthetic agent utilized in all cases — crystalline tetracaine (Niphanoid) in 71% and a 1% solution in 19% of the cases. The failure rate overall was 4%, with all failures being due to anesthetic factors, both technical and pharmacologic. However, only 25% of the failures were due to errors in technique, and 75% were due to errors in judgment with respect to pharmacologic factors (dosage, use of epinephrine, and/or positioning of the patient). Our data, therefore, differ from those of Levy et al. (Anesth Analg 1985;64:705–10), both in terms of failure rate, which is 25% of theirs, and in terms of causation, with our data indicating errors in judgment to be the causative factor three times as often as errors in technique. Presumably, this difference is due to the greater experience in spinal anesthesia that a resident receives at our institution.

Key Words: ANESTHETIC TECHNIQUES—spinal




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Anesth. Analg.Home page
T. Standl, A. Stanek, M.-A. Burmeister, S. Gruschow, B. Wahlen, K. Muller, J. Biscoping, and H.-A. Adams
Spinal Anesthesia Performance Conditions and Side Effects Are Comparable Between the Newly Designed Ballpen and the Sprotte Needle: Results of a Prospective Comparative Randomized Multicenter Study
Anesth. Analg., February 1, 2004; 98(2): 512 - 517.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins Anesthesia & Analgesia® is published for the International Anesthesia Research Society® by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins with the assistance of Stanford University Libraries' HighWire Press®. Copyright 2006 by the International Anesthesia Research Society. Online ISSN: 1526-7598   Print ISSN: 0003-2999 HighWire Press
Copyright © 1988 by the International Anesthesia Research Society.