Post-dural Puncture Headache: A Comparative Study Using 25 G Quincke's Needle in Midline and Paramedian Approaches in...

Background and objectives Spinal anesthesia (SA) has become a preferred anesthetic technique for elective cesarean sections due to its rapid onset, profound sensory and motor blockade, and minimal impact on the newborn. It lowers the risk of development of thrombus in the veins and pulmonary vessels and permits early ambulation. The most popular technique used to reach the subarachnoid space is the midline technique, though it can be challenging to use in some cases, including those involving elderly patients with degenerative abnormalities in the vertebral column, patients who are unable to flex the vertebral column, noncooperative patients, and hyperesthetic patients. The paramedian technique resolves the challenges posed by the midline technique. It is also relatively easy to carry out. Based on the midline technique's inadequacies, we hypothesized that the paramedian method of SA would be less complicated than the midline approach, with a relatively low occurrence of post-dural puncture headaches (PDPH). Methodology Using the midline and paramedian approaches during cesarean surgeries, we performed an observational descriptive longitudinal study to assess the occurrence and magnitude of PDPH. During an elective cesarean delivery, the seated patient received 2.0-2.5 ml of hyperbaric bupivacaine using the midline or paramedian approaches and a 25 G Quincke's needle at the L3-L4 level. Eighty-four pregnant females with American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status II, aged 18 to 35 (n = 42 in each group), were included in this research. The occurrence and severity of PDPH were compared among the groups during a period of five days. Result In comparison to the paramedian group (7.1%), the midline group had a higher incidence of PDPH (14.3%). There was a significant correlation between the technique and the occurrence of PDPH (p = 0.041). The visual analogue scale (VAS) was employed to quantify pain five days after surgery. Pain levels in Group B (paramedian) were consistently less than those in Group A (midline). On day 1, Group B had a mean score of 0.49 ± 1.16 (p = 0.030) compared to Group A's mean VAS score of 1.27 ± 1.95. Day 5 (p = 0.032): Because this tendency persisted through day 5, the p-values for days 2, 3, 4, and 5 remained significant. These findings suggest that the midline technique is linked to a higher occurrence and magnitude of PDPH than the paramedian approach. Conclusion Employing a paramedian technique has been associated with a noteworthy decline in the frequency of PDPH and a decrease in the need for additional analgesics, which could lead to a less severe case of PDPH. The paramedian approach needed fewer attempts and needle passes, which leads to a lower incidence of headache, backache, and injection site pain and better patient satisfaction.