Long-term Complications of Unintentional Dural Puncture During Labor Epidural Analgesia: A Case-Control Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction Epidural analgesia is the preferred method to manage pain during labor and delivery. The insertion of the epidural catheter can be complicated by unintentional dural puncture that may result in postdural puncture headache. There is limited evidence on the long term implications of this complication. We sought to investigate if women who sustained a dural puncture have a higher risk of developing chronic headache, low back pain and visual or auditory impairment. Methods We conducted a 1:1 case-control study with women who delivered at our institution from January 2015 to December 2019. Cases were women who received epidural analgesia and sustained an unintentional dural puncture and controls were women who received epidural analgesia but did not sustain such complication. We matched cases and controls for date of delivery, age, and BMI. All women completed an online survey with validated questionnaires for diagnosis of chronic headache and chronic back pain. We used dichotomic (yes/no) questions to look for the presence of chronic visual and auditory impairment. Results Sixty-three case-control pairs were studied. Women who sustained a dural puncture during their epidural catheter insertion had a higher risk of developing chronic headache [14.3%, versus 4.8%, p=0.049, AOR: 3.36 (1.05, 12.82)] and chronic back pain [39.7% versus 19.1%, p=0.009, AOR: 2.67 (1.25, 5.72)] than women who did not sustain a dural puncture. The incidence of chronic auditory impairment was also higher in the dural puncture group [14.3% versus 1.6%, p=0.007, AOR: 9.98 (1.21, 82.62)]. Conclusions An unintentional dural puncture during epidural catheter insertion in parturients is associated with increased risk of chronic headache, back pain and auditory impairment.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".