Epidural Catheter Penetration of Human Dural Tissue
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".