Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 13, 2026
Spinal Sonography for Ultrasound-Guided Lumbar Neuraxial Anesthesia
Published on: January 31, 2025
Development and evaluation of a score to predict difficult epidural placement during labor
Jean Guglielminotti1, France Mentré, Ennoufous Bedairia
1Département d'Anesthésie-Réanimation, Hôpital Bichat, France. jean.guglielminotti@bch.aphp.fr
Background And Objectives:
Difficult epidural placement (DEP) during labor may be distressing for the patient and may increase the risk of dural puncture. A score predicting DEP based on the combination of individual risk factors could identify high-risk patients. This study aimed to identify risk factors for DEP and build a prediction score.
Methods:
Three hundred thirty patients were prospectively included. Difficult epidural placement was defined as more than 1 skin puncture with a Tuohy needle. Dura puncture occurrence was recorded. The population was randomly split into a training set and a validation set. In the training set, risk factors were identified with logistic regression and used to build a score defining 3 risk groups. Model and score discrimination was assessed with the C-index and clinical usefulness of the score with decision curves.
Results:
Difficult epidural placement frequency was 30% (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 25%-35%). Dural puncture was more frequent in DEP patients (4% vs 0%, P = 0.007). Three independent risk factors for DEP were identified: difficult interspinous space palpation (odds ratio [OR], 6.1; 95% CI, 2.8-13.9), spinal deformity (OR, 2.4; 95% CI, 1.1-5.3), and inability to flex the back (OR, 3.0; 95% CI, 1.2-7.8). The C-index of the model was 0.81 (95% CI, 0.74-0.88) in the training set and 0.78 (95% CI, 0.70-0.86) in the validation set. A 5-point score was created to define groups with low risk (score 0), intermediate risk (score 1-2), and high risk (score 3-4), with predicted rates of DEP of 9.7%, 30.3%, and 68.9%, respectively. The C-index of the score was 0.79 (95% CI, 0.72-0.86) in the training set and 0.76 (95% CI, 0.69-0.84) in the validation set. Decision curves support the clinical usefulness of the score.
Conclusions:
This study confirms risk factors for DEP and proposes a score to predict DEP. The score identifies high-risk patients who may benefit from an intervention to decrease DEP. This hypothesis should be evaluated in an impact study.
