Background: Factors contributing to subarachnoid catheter passage after epidural placement are not well understood. This study explored mechanisms that might explain its occurrence.
Methods: Human cadaveric dura was mounted on a model and pressurized to physiologic levels. In a standardized fashion, a 20-gauge Portex three-port, closed end (nonflexible) tip catheter was passed through an epidural needle mounted on a micromanipulator at a 90 degree angle, attempting to penetrate dura with the catheter. Attempts then followed with a 19-gauge Arrow Flex Tip Plus single-port catheter. Subarachnoid catheter passage was compared in (1) intact dura, (2) clinically occult versus obvious epidural needle punctures, and (3) single 25-gauge Whitacre spinal needle punctures after combined spinal-epidural placement.
Results: Neither catheter penetrated intact dura: Portex, 0 of 300 attempts (0.0000; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.0000, 0.0158); Arrow, 0 of 300 attempts (0.0000; 95% CI: 0.0000, 0.0158). In clinically occult epidural needle punctures, the 20-gauge Portex catheter penetrated 1 of 3 specimens in 1 of 14 attempts (0.0714; 95% CI: 0.0021, 0.3583). The 19-gauge Arrow did not pass (0 of 15 attempts, 0.0000; 95% CI: 0.0000, 0.2535). In clinically obvious epidural needle punctures, the Portex passed in 6 of 33 attempts (0.1818; 95% CI: 0.0760, 0.3608) and the Arrow passed in 1 of 35 attempts (0.0286; 95% CI: 0.0012, 0.1662). Neither catheter passed through a single 25-gauge spinal needle puncture after an uncomplicated combined spinal-epidural: Portex, 0 of 90 attempts (0.0000; 95% CI: 0.0000, 0.0510); Arrow, 0 of 90 attempts (0.0000; 95% CI: 0.0000, 0.0510).
Conclusions: Catheter passage is unlikely in the presence of intact dura or after an uncomplicated combined spinal-epidural. Unintentional subarachnoid passage suggests dural damage with the epidural needle.