The Scandinavian Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine Clinical Practice Committee endorses the BMJ Rapid Recommendation clinical practice guideline on atraumatic (pencil-point) vs conventional needles for lumbar puncture. This includes the strong recommendation for the use of atraumatic needles for lumbar puncture in all patients regardless of age or indication.Peer reviewe

Chew, Michelle S.

Moller, Morten Hylander

Olkkola, Klaus T.

Rehn, Marius

Sverrison, Kristinn O.

Yli-Hankala, Arvi

Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica

English

To access publisher's full text version of this article click on the hyperlink belowThe Scandinavian Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine Clinical Practice Committee endorses the BMJ Rapid Recommendation clinical practice guideline on atraumatic (pencil-point) vs conventional needles for lumbar puncture. This includes the strong recommendation for the use of atraumatic needles for lumbar puncture in all patients regardless of age or indication.SSA

Chew, Michelle S

Olkkola, Klaus T

Sverrison, Kristinn Ö

Møller, Morten Hylander

Landspítali University Hospital Research Archive

Clinical practice guideline on atraumatic (pencil-point) vs conventional needles for lumbar puncture: Endorsement by the Scandinavian Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine.

Helsingin yliopiston digitaalinen arkisto

438  |   wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/aas Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2019;63:438–439.© 2018 The Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica Foundation. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd1  | BACKGROUNDAnaesthesiologists and intensivists regularly perform lumbar punctures for therapeutic or diagnostic purposes. A common complication after lumbar puncture is sustained leakage of cerebro‐spinal fluid from a dural tear potentially causing debilitating post‐dural‐puncture headache.1 It is recognized that needle design may  Received: 13 November 2018  |  Accepted: 26 November 2018DOI: 10.1111/aas.13312R E V I E W  A R T I C L EClinical practice guideline on atraumatic (pencil‐point) vs conventional needles for lumbar puncture: Endorsement by the Scandinavian Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care MedicineMarius Rehn1,2,3  | Michelle S. Chew4 | Klaus T. Olkkola5 | Kristinn Ö. Sverrison6 |  Arvi Yli‐Hankala7,8 | Morten Hylander Møller91Pre‐Hospital Division, Air Ambulance Department, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway2The Norwegian Air Ambulance Foundation, Oslo, Norway3Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Stavanger, Stavanger, Norway4Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Medicine and Health, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden5Department of Anaesthesiology, Intensive Care and Pain Medicine, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland6Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine, Landspitali University Hospital, Reykjavík, Iceland7Department of Anaesthesia, Tampere University Hospital, Tampere, Finland8Faculty of Medicine and Life Sciences, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland9Department of Intensive Care, Copenhagen University Hospital Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, DenmarkCorrespondenceMarius Rehn, Pre‐Hospital Division, Air Ambulance Department, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.Email: marius.rehn@norskluftambulanse.noFunding informationFunding was provided solely from the SSAI and institutional and/or departmental sources.The Scandinavian Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine Clinical Practice Committee endorses the BMJ Rapid Recommendation clinical practice guideline on atraumatic (pencil‐point) vs conventional needles for lumbar puncture. This includes the strong recommendation for the use of atraumatic needles for lum‐bar puncture in all patients regardless of age or indication.     |  439REHN Et al.influence cerebrospinal fluid leakage from the dural defect that is created during the puncture.2In May 2018, Rochwerg et al3 published a BMJ Rapid Recommendation clinical practice guideline on atraumatic (pencil‐point) vs conventional needles for lumbar puncture.The Scandinavian Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine (SSAI) Clinical Practice Committee (CPC) decided to ap‐praise this guideline for possible endorsement to guide Scandinavian anaesthesiologists and intensivists in choice of atraumatic (pencil‐point) vs conventional needles for lumbar puncture.2  | METHODSThe SSAI CPC assessed the guideline using the Appraisal of Guidelines for REsearch and Evaluation (AGREE) II tool,4 as per the outlined process for endorsement of non‐SSAI guidelines (Figure S1).3  | RESULTS3.1 | Quality appraisal (AGREE II)Five SSAI CPC members completed the appraisal. One member co‐au‐thored the guideline and was excluded from the evaluation (Figure S1).The individual domain totals were: (a) scope and purpose 86%; (b) stakeholder involvement 91%; (c) rigor of development 87%; (d) clarity of presentation 94%; (e) applicability 78%; (f) editorial inde‐pendence 98%; and (g) overall assessment 93%.The breakdown of the individual appraisers (de‐identified) is available in the Supporting information.4  | DISCUSSIONThis clinical practice guideline on atraumatic (pencil‐point) vs con‐ventional needles for lumbar puncture achieved overall high ratings on all domains with acceptable agreement between the SSAI CPC appraisers.5  | CONCLUSIONThe SSAI CPC endorses the BMJ Rapid Recommendation clinical practice guideline on atraumatic (pencil‐point) vs conventional nee‐dles for lumbar puncture,3 including the strong recommendation for the use of atraumatic needles for lumbar puncture in all patients re‐gardless of age or indication.ACKNOWLEDG EMENTSNone.CONFLIC T OF INTERE S TNo Clinical Practice Committee member had direct conflicts of in‐terest. MHM was a co‐author of the guideline assessed and did not participate in the AGREE II assessment, as per the SSAI endorsement process. No other authors had indirect conflicts of interest.ORCIDMarius Rehn  https://orcid.org/0000‐0001‐9519‐241X Morten Hylander Møller  https://orcid.org/0000‐0002‐6378‐9673 R E FE R E N C E S 1. Lavi R, Yarnitsky D, Rowe JM, Weissman A, Segal D, Avivi I. Standard vs atraumatic Whitacre needle for diagnostic lumbar puncture: a ran‐domized trial. Neurology. 2006;67:1492‐1494. 2. Nath S, Koziarz A, Badhiwala JH, et al. Atraumatic versus conven‐tional lumbar puncture needles: a systematic review and meta‐analy‐sis. Lancet. 2018;391:1197‐1204. 3. Rochwerg B, Almenawer SA, Siemieniuk R, et al. Atraumatic (pen‐cil‐point) versus conventional needles for lumbar puncture: a clinical practice guideline. BMJ. 2018;361:k1920. 4. Brouwers MC, Kho ME, Browman GP, et al. AGREE II: advancing guideline development, reporting and evaluation in health care. CMAJ. 2010;182:E839‐E842.SUPPORTING INFORMATIONAdditional supporting information may be found online in the Supporting Information section at the end of the article. How to cite this article: Rehn M, Chew MS, Olkkola KT, Sverrison KÖ, Yli‐Hankala A, Møller MH. Clinical practice guideline on atraumatic (pencil‐point) vs conventional needles for lumbar puncture: Endorsement by the Scandinavian Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2019;63:438–439. https://doi.org/10.1111/aas.13312

Clinical practice guideline on atraumatic (pencil-point) vs conventional needles for lumbar puncture : Endorsement by the Scandinavian Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine

Sverrison, Kristinn

Copenhagen University Research Information System

Clinical practice guideline on atraumatic (pencil-point) vs conventional needles for lumbar puncture:Endorsement by the Scandinavian Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine

Hirsla - Landspítali University Hospital

https://helda.helsinki.fi/bitstream/10138/313504/1/Clinical_practice_guideline_on_atraumatic.pdf

Clinical practice guideline on atraumatic (pencil-point) vs conventional needles for lumbar puncture : Endorsement by the Scandinavian Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Landspítali University Hospital Research Archive

Helsingin yliopiston digitaalinen arkisto

Copenhagen University Research Information System

Hirsla - Landspítali University Hospital