Presented in part at the Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain & Ireland Annual Congress, Harrogate, September 2010
A simulation-based evaluation of two proposed alternatives to Luer devices for use in neuraxial anaesthesia†
Article first published online: 12 OCT 2010
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.2010.06537.x
© 2010 The Authors. Anaesthesia © 2010 The Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland
Additional Information
How to Cite
Cook, T. M., Payne, S., Skryabina, E., Hurford, D., Clow, E. and Georgiou, A. (2010), A simulation-based evaluation of two proposed alternatives to Luer devices for use in neuraxial anaesthesia. Anaesthesia, 65: 1069–1079. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.2010.06537.x
- †
Publication History
- Issue published online: 12 OCT 2010
- Article first published online: 12 OCT 2010
- Accepted: 9 September 2010
- Abstract
- Article
- References
- Cited By
Summary
The National Patient Safety Agency has issued a Patient Safety Alert with the aim of eliminating Luer connectors from equipment for lumbar puncture and subarachnoid injections by 1 April 2011, and from all neuraxial and regional anaesthesia equipment in 2013. B-link (UK) Ltd and InterVene Ltd have produced non-Luer connectors for neuraxial devices: the Neurax® and Spinalok® respectively. Using an adult spinal simulator, 59 experienced clinicians performed neuraxial procedures using these devices and reported on specific performance characteristics and overall usability. Cross-connectivity between non-Luer and Luer connectors was also examined. The median (IQR [range]) overall assessment scores (0–10 scale) of usability for the standard, Neurax and Spinalok systems were 8 (8–9 [7–10]), 6 (5–7 [0–8]) and 7 (6–8 [1–9]) for spinal procedures and 8 (8–9 [6–10]), 7 (5–8 [1–9]) and 4 (3–6 [0–9]) for epidural procedures, respectively. Both study systems scored significantly lower than standard equipment for overall performance of spinal and epidural procedures, although the performance of non-Luer devices was mostly rated ‘adequate’ or better. Both non-Luer connectors could cross-connect with one or more Luer connectors. Following feedback to the manufacturers, both systems have been modified and cross-connectivity apparently has been eliminated. Our results indicate that clinicians may not find non-Luer devices immediately ‘user-friendly’. More importantly, some cross-connectivity with Luer devices was possible. Our findings illustrate that introducing equipment that is fully compliant with the National Patient Safety Agency alert poses a significant challenge to manufacturers and clinicians. We conclude that before introducing any non-Luer device into widespread use, independent, formal evaluation should be carried out.

1365-2044/asset/olbannerleft.gif?v=1&s=bd83df57543a1d11ffc15f630bb1301f0be80859)
1365-2044/asset/olbannerright.gif?v=1&s=682381a959ba60d2021adaffc90d459e71bfcaba)
