An evaluation of non‐Luer safety connectors for neuraxial procedures

Abstract

SummaryWe evaluated seven non-Luer spinal needles in a two-part study. In part 1, we measured the time to see and collect simulated cerebrospinal fluid. In part 2, clinicians scored needle quality using a standardised questionnaire. The mean (

Strength of commonly used spinal needles: the ability to deform and resist deformation

“…The non‐Luer hub design can be bulky, and can add a new interface where weakness can occur. Practical and ethical difficulties have limited a full clinical evaluation of spinal needles incorporating the new non‐Luer connectors . Meanwhile, introduction of the new needles is patchy, with some units changing over completely and others continuing with their previous (Luer) needles.…”

“…These examine compression, fatigue, flexural strength and other parameters. There are few comparative studies of spinal needle strength, and none (as far as we are aware) that compare Luer vs. non‐Luer spinal needles .…”

Luers, ethics, research and service evaluation: even more shades of grey?

“…In this issue of Anaesthesia, Sharpe et al also report a clinical evaluation of non‐Luer spinal needles after REC, R&D and legal department review waived the requirement for ethical review or ‘explicit patient consent’ . The aim was to “ evaluate all systems….to enable the Trust to make a decision on which system to purchase ”.…”

Luers, ethics, research and service evaluation: more than just the sharp end

“…In the absence of the earlier pre‐clinical stages, the assessment of non‐Luer equipment had to start with clinical practice. Two clinical evaluations of non‐Luer spinal needles have recently been performed in England, published in Anaesthesia in November 2012 and in this issue . These were prompted by the issuing of a Patient Safety Alert by the National Patient Safety Agency (NPSA, its responsibilities now taken over by the NHS Commissioning Board) requiring NHS organisations to introduce spinal devices that would not cross‐connect to intravenous (Luer) devices and vice versa .…”

“…These were prompted by the issuing of a Patient Safety Alert by the National Patient Safety Agency (NPSA, its responsibilities now taken over by the NHS Commissioning Board) requiring NHS organisations to introduce spinal devices that would not cross‐connect to intravenous (Luer) devices and vice versa . The evaluations were considered by us and by the regulatory bodies including the NPSA as service evaluation , but by Cook in the accompanying editorial in this issue, as research .…”