BackgroundThe patient’s position during spinal anesthesia administration plays a major role in the success of spinal needle insertion into the subarachnoid space. The traditional sitting position (TSP) is the standard position for spinal anesthesia administration, but the success rate for spinal anesthesia administration in the TSP is still quite low. The crossed-leg sitting position (CLSP) is one of the alternative positions for the administration of spinal anesthesia, which can increase the degree of lumbar flexion.ObjectivesThis study aimed to compare successful spinal needle placement to patients in the CLSP and patients in the TSP prior to undergoing urology surgery.MethodsThis study was a non-blinded, randomized controlled trial in patients undergoing spinal anesthesia for urologic procedures from March-October, 2015 in the central national hospital Dr. Cipto Mangunkusumo, Indonesia. After obtaining approval from the FMUI – RSCM (Faculty of Medicine Universitas Indonesia – Rumah Sakit Dr. Cipto Mangunkusumo) Ethical Committee and informed consent from patients, 211 subjects were allocated into two groups: the CLSP group (n = 105) and the TSP group (n = 106). The proportion of successful spinal needle placement to the subarachnoid space, ease of landmark palpation, and the number of needle-bone contacts in both groups were then assessed and analyzed.ResultsThe rate of first-time successful spinal needle insertion was not significantly different between the CLSP and TSP groups (62.9% versus 55.7%, P > 0.05). Ease of landmark palpation in the CLSP group was not significantly different from that in the TSP group (86.7% versus 76.4%, P > 0.05). The number of needle-bone contacts in both groups were not significantly different (P > 0.05). The complication rates were similar in both groups.ConclusionsThe rate of successful spinal needle placement in the CLSP group was not significantly different from that in the TSP group in patients undergoing urology surgery. The CLSP can be used as an alternative sitting position for administration of spinal anesthesia.

Background and objectives The erector spinae plane block (ESPB) and classical thoracolumbar interfascial plane (TLIP) block can reduce postoperative pain in lumbar surgery. In this study, we compared the efficacy of ESPB and classical TLIP block in providing perioperative analgesia in patients undergoing lumbar posterior decompression and stabilization by comparing postoperative pain, opioid consumption, and IL-6 and IL-10 serum concentrations between ESPB and classical TLIP block. Method This was a prospective, double-blinded, randomized controlled trial in tertiary referral hospitals. Forty patients were randomized into two equal groups, each receiving either ESPB or classical TLIP block. The primary outcome was the difference in IL-6 and IL-10 serum concentrations at baseline and 6 h after lumbar posterior decompression and stabilization. The secondary outcome was total opioid consumption and pain score 24 h post-operatively. Result There were no significant differences between the ESPB and classical TLIP block groups in pain score, IL-6 and IL-10 concentration change, and total opioid consumption post-operatively. There was a significant difference in the time until the first dose of morphine was needed between the ESPB and classical TLIP block groups (300 min vs. 547.5 min; p = 0.002). Conclusion ESPB and classical TLIP block performance during lumbar surgery have comparable pain scores, IL-6 and IL-10 concentration differences pre- and post-operation, and total opioid consumption post-operatively. However, classical TLIP block provides a prolonged duration of analgesia. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04951024.

Background: The anatomical marker used in spinal anesthesia is L4-L5 interspace. The L4-L5 interspace is thought to be right on the Tuffier's line, which connects the two highest points on the iliac crest. The location of L4-L5 interspace from the Tuffier's line varies greatly because of the influence of several factors such as differences in race, sex, age, and anthropometric factors. This study aimed to examine the relationship between age, sex, and anthropometry factors with the distance of L4-L5 interspace from the Tuffier's line using ultrasound guidance at Cipto Mangunkusumo National General Hospital. Materials and Methods: This was an observational analytic study with a cross-sectional design in 93 subjects at Cipto Mangunkusumo National General Hospital recruited for the study. Statistical analysis was performed to find the relationship between age, sex, and anthropometry factors with the distance of L4-L5 interspace from the Tuffier's line and to continue with multivariate analysis to obtain the prediction formula of the distance between L4-L5 interspace and the Tuffier's line. Results: This study found that the distance of L4-L5 interspace to the Tuffier's line is −2.59 ± 1.58 cm. Correlation analysis showed a significant relationship between height and sex to the distance of L4-L5 interspace and the Tuffier's line. The distance prediction formula obtained in this study is 4.921 + [0.536 × (1 for male or 2 for female)] + (−0.052 × height in cm). Conclusion: There was a significant relationship between height and sex to the distance of L4-L5 interspace from the Tuffier's line.