To review the use of epidural electric stimulation test, pressure waveform analysis, and ultrasound assessment of injection as bedside methods for confirming identification of the epidural space in adults with acute pain, the PubMed database was searched for relevant reports between May and August 2022. Studies reporting diagnostic accuracy with conventional Touhy needles and epidural catheters were further selected for meta-analysis. Sensitivity and specificity were estimated using univariate logistic regression for electric stimulation and pressure analysis, and pooling of similar studies for ultrasound. Risk of bias and applicability was assessed using QUADAS-2. For electric stimulation, pressure waveform analysis, and ultrasound, respectively 35, 22, and 28 reports were included in the review and 9, 9, and 7 studies in the meta-analysis. Electric stimulation requires wire-reinforced catheters and an adequate nerve stimulator, does not reliably identify intravascular placement, and is affected by local anaesthetics. Sensitivity was 95% (95% CI 93-96%, N = 550) and specificity unknown (95% CI 33-94%, N = 44). Pressure waveform analysis is unaffected by local anaesthetics, but does not identify intravascular nor intrathecal catheters. Sensitivity was 90% (95% CI 72-97%, N = 694) and specificity 88% (95% CI 78-94%, N = 67). B-mode, M-mode and doppler ultrasound may be challenging, and data is still limited. Risk of bias was significant and accuracy estimates must be interpreted with caution. Electric stimulation and pressure waveform analysis seem clinically useful, although they must be interpreted cautiously. In the future, clinical trials in patients with difficult anatomy will likely be most useful. Ultrasound requires further investigation.
Keywords: Electric Stimulation; Epidural Space; Epidural anaesthesia; Meta-analysis; Pulse; Ultrasonography.
© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V.