Israel Medical Association Journal

The use of smaller-diameter, pencil-point spinal needles has increased to reduce post-dural puncture headaches in obstetric patients. However, this therapy has also led to more needle deformation and breakage. While risk factors and prevention are described, there is limited literature on management when breakage occurs.

The utilization of neuraxial techniques for labor analgesia and cesarean delivery has experienced a consistent increase in recent years [1]. Spinal anesthesia has emerged as the preferred technique for cesarean deliveries due to its advantages, including a reduction in morbidity and mortality, decreased complications related to airway management, reduced bleeding, improved bonding with the baby, and better outcomes for newborns [2]. While the adoption of smaller diameter, non-cutting bevel spinal needles has successfully reduced the incidence of post-dural puncture headaches in obstetric patients, it has also given rise to complications such as spinal needle deformation and breakage [3,4]. The current understanding of the incidence of neuraxial needle breakage remains limited, with estimated incidences reported between approximately 1 in 5,000 to 1 in 11,000 spinal anesthesia procedures performed [4]. Although numerous case reports have documented broken needles during attempted neuraxial anesthesia, the existing literature predominantly focuses on associated risk factors and preventive measures for this complication [3]. However, there is a lack of literature regarding the subsequent management once this adverse event has transpired. In this report, we present a case involving a broken spinal needle during an attempt to perform spinal anesthesia for an urgent cesarean delivery. By sharing this case, we shed light on the management strategies and considerations following such an event.

Background: Younger patient age and relatively good prognosis have been described as factors that may increase caregiver motivation in treating patients with septic shock in the intensive care unit (ICU).

Objectives: To examine whether clinical teams tended to achieve unnecessarily higher map arterial pressure (MAP) values in younger patients.

Methods: We conducted a population-based retrospective cohort study of patients presenting with septic shock who were treated with noradrenaline and hospitalized in a general ICU between 2006 and 2018. The patients were classified into four age groups: 18-45 (n=129), 46-60 (n=96), 61-75 (n=157), and older than 75 years (n=173). Adjusted linear mixed models and locally weighted scatterplot smoothing (LOWESS) curves were used to assess associations and potential non-linear relationships, respectively, of age group with MAP and noradrenaline dosage.

Results: The cohort included 555 patients. An inverse relation was observed between average MAP value and age. Among patients aged 18–45 years, the average MAP was 4.7 mmHg higher (95% confidence interval 3.4–5.9) than among patients aged > 75 years (P-value <0.001) after adjustment for sex, death in the intensive care unit, and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores.

Conclusions: Among patients with septic shock, the titration of noradrenaline by staff led to a higher average MAP for younger patients. Although the MAP target is equal for all age groups, staff may administer noradrenaline treatment according to a higher target of MAP due to attitudes toward patients of different ages, despite any evidence that such practice is beneficial.

Background: Our hospital used to perform cesarean delivery under general anesthesia rather than neuraxial anesthesia, mostly because of patient refusal of members of the conservative Bedouin society. According to recommendations implemented by the Israeli Obstetric Anesthesia Society, which were implemented due to the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic, we increased the rate of neuraxial anesthesia among deliveries.

Objectives: To compare the rates of neuraxial anesthesia in our cesarean population before and during SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.

Methods: We included consecutive women undergoing an elective cesarean delivery from two time periods: pre-SARS-CoV-2 pandemic (15 February 2019 to 14 April 2019) and during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic (15 February 2020 to 15 April 2020). We collected demographic data, details about cesarean delivery, and anesthesia complications.

Results: We included 413 parturients undergoing consecutive elective cesarean delivery identified during the study periods: 205 before the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic and 208 during SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. We found a statistically significant difference in neuraxial anesthesia rates between the groups: before the pandemic (92/205, 44.8%) and during (165/208, 79.3%; P < 0.0001).

Conclusions: We demonstrated that patient and provider education about neuraxial anesthesia can increase its utilization. The addition of a trained obstetric anesthesiologist to the team may have facilitated this transition

Background: Optimal oxygen supply is the cornerstone of the management of critically ill patients after extubation, especially in patients at high risk for extubation failure. In recent years, high flow oxygen system devices have offered an appropriate alternative to standard oxygen therapy devices such as conventional face masks and nasal prongs.

Objectives: To assess the clinical effects of high flow nasal cannula (HFNC) compared with standard oxygen face masks in Intensive Care Unit (ICU) patients after extubation.

Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 67 consecutive ventilated critical care patients in the ICU over a period of 1 year. The patients were allocated to two treatment groups: HFNC (34 patients, group 1) and non-rebreathing oxygen face mask (NRB) (33 patients, group 2). Vital respiratory and hemodynamic parameters were assessed prior to extubation and 6 hours after extubation. The primary clinical outcomes measured were improvement in oxygenation, ventilation-free days, re-intubation, ICU length of stay, and mortality.

Results: The two groups demonstrated similar hemodynamic patterns before and after extubation. The respiratory rate was slightly elevated in both groups after extubation with no differences observed between groups. There were no statistically significant clinical differences in PaCO₂. However, the use of HFNC resulted in improved PaO₂/FiO₂ post-extubation (P < 0.05). There were more ventilator-free days in the HFNC group (P < 0.05) and fewer patients required re-intubation (1 vs. 6). There were no differences in ICU length of stay or mortality.

Conclusion: This study demonstrated better oxygenation for patients treated with HFNC compared with NRB after extubation. HFNC may be more effective than standard oxygen supply devices for oxygenation in the post-extubation period.