Spinal PunctureNCT00775112
Randomized Evaluation of a Positioning Pillow for Lumbar Puncture in Paediatric Hematology-Oncology
A study testing pillow in people with Spinal Puncture, run by Centre Leon Berard at 2 sites in France.
Trial summary
We have developed a positioning cushion for LP which allows the child to be relaxed in an adequate position, and to maintain this position throughout LP. This study was aimed at evaluating the benefit of the device on the technical quality of LPs, on pain, anxiety, post LP syndrome, and on the satisfaction of… Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 2 to 18 years
- Conditions the study is for
- Spinal Puncture
- What is being tested?
- pillow
- Type of treatment
- Medical device
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 124 participants
- Where
- 2 sitesFrance
- Study dates
- Jul 2004to Sep 2006
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 2 to 18 years
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Child, Adult
Who may be able to join
- Children aged 2 to 18 years undergoing an LP
Who cannot join
- Children who had already participated or used the LP pillow
- medical condition (orthopaedic anomaly) contraindicating the use of the LP pillow
- Parents refusal
Trial locations and contacts
2 sites in 1 country.
About this study
We have developed a positioning cushion for LP which allows the child to be relaxed in an adequate position, and to maintain this position throughout LP. This study was aimed at evaluating the benefit of the device on the technical quality of LPs, on pain, anxiety, post LP syndrome, and on the satisfaction of children, their parents and caregivers.
The study was a two-centre, open, randomized trial, with two parallel groups. Children aged 2 to 18 years undergoing a LP were eligible, if not included in the study before. Those who had used the cushion before, with a medical reason preventing the use of the cushion, those refusing or whose parents refused could not be included. Randomization was stratified by centre.
Four cushion sizes were available for the age ranges: 2-6 years, 6-10 years, 10-15 and 15-18 years. The primary outcome was the rate of success, defined as a LP reaching its objective at the first attempt, without hemorrhage (visible hemorrhage or RBC > 50/mm3 in the CSF sample). Secondary outcomes included: the child's pain using a visual analogic scale (VAS), parents and caregiver perception of the child's pain (VAS); the children, parents, caregiver and physician performing the LP satisfaction; children cooperation using the "Le Baron Scale", and the occurrence of a post LP syndrome.
Read the detailed description
Our study was an open, randomized, controlled trial, with two parallel groups assigned to "LP pillow" or "no intervention" conducted in patients undergoing LP.
Participants Children aged 2 to 18 years undergoing an LP were eligible for inclusion. Children who had already participated or used the LP pillow, who had a medical condition (orthopaedic anomaly) contraindicating the use of the LP pillow or whose parents refused consent were excluded.
A permuted-block algorithm was used for randomization, with participants stratified according to centre. Concealed allocation was achieved by a phone call to the coordination centre after eligibility check and baseline data collection.
Intervention The LP pillow was made of polyethylene microcellular foam, coated with rubber to facilitate decontamination. It was placed on the thighs of the child sitting with the trunk leaning forward. This position ensures maximum lumbar flexion whereas resting the trunk on the pillow allows relaxation of paravertebral muscles. The axis of the body and the spinal column were maintained perfectly symmetrical in the sagittal plane (see illustration Fig 1).
The pillow included side supports for the head; the face remained uncovered so that the child could breathe and speak comfortably; this also facilitated nitrous oxide administration. Props supporting the patient's arms maintained the cervical column in a neutral position. An opening allowed touching the child's hands and forearms. Splints at the bottom side immobilized the child's thighs to ensure effective stabilization.
Four sizes were available corresponding approximately to the following age ranges: 2-6 years, 6-10 years, 10-15 and 15-18 years. Two sets were available for the study, one per centre.
Outcomes Primary outcome was the technical quality of the LP, classified as success or failure. A successful LP is defined as one that achieves its purpose (sampling and/or treatment) at the first attempt, without visible haemorrhage and with RBC < 50/mm3 in the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) sample (biochemical analysis).
Secondary outcomes included: child's pain, evaluated by self-administered visual analogical scales (VAS) for children over 6 years of age; parents' and caregivers' perception of the child's pain; satisfaction of the children, parents, caregivers and physician performing the LP assessed using verbal scoring; child cooperation rated with the "LeBaron Scale" (Lebaron 1984). Other outcomes included the number of attending persons (parents and/ or caregivers); duration of positioning and procedure; incidence, symptoms and duration of post-LP syndrome assessed 48 hours after LP by phone interview.
Data collection included anaesthetic, sedative and analgesic drugs used; needle size (19G, 20G, 22G); general status of the child evaluated with Karnofsky or Lansky score (Lansky 1985); platelet count; number of previous LP; date of and satisfaction with the last LP (verbal scale), practitioner experience in performing LP, presence of the parents, aim of the LP: diagnosis, therapeutic monitoring, treatment injection; amount of CSF removed (drops).
The study protocol was approved by the institutional review board of Lyon A - Hôtel-Dieu on June 8th 2004, and was conducted in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration. All parents gave written informed consent before participation of their child. Children were asked to give written consent when fully able to understand the proposed procedure.
Data were managed using CLININFO S.A. (France) software and services for clinical trial data management and quality control.
Sample size and statistical analysis The protocol initially included a total of 80 children. The sample size calculation was based on a rate of success of 70% in the control group and 95% in the pillow group, with 80%-power and 0.05 two-sided significance level (N Query® software). Based on the rate of success in the control group after inclusion of the 40th child, the sample size was re-estimated and increased to 124 children (62 per group) and the inclusion period was extended from 12 to 24 months. Comparisons between groups were performed using non parametric methods, i.e. the Wilcoxon rank test or the Fisher's exact test, depending on the nature of the variable. A logistic regression model was fitted to the platelet count and the number of LP prior to entering the study. An exploratory subgroup analysis was performed in children over 6 years of age. Comparisons with p-value less than 0.05 were considered significant. The STATA 9.2 (SatatCorp 2005. Stata Statistical Software: Release 9.0 College Station, TX: Satat Corporation) software was used to perform statistical analyses.
- Conditions
- Spinal Puncture
- Being tested
- pillow
- Keywords
- supportive care, lumbar puncture, childhood disease, pediatric hemato-oncology
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
pillowDevice
use of pillow for lumbar punctures
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Experimental | with pillow Receives: Device: pillow |
| 2 | No intervention | without pillow |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
technical quality of the LP, classified as success or failure.
Measured: immediate
Secondary outcomes (4)
child's pain
Measured: immediate
satisfaction of the children, parents, caregivers and physician performing the LP assessed using verbal scoring;
Measured: immediate
number of attending persons
Measured: immediate
symptoms and duration of post-LP syndrome assessed 48 hours after LP
Measured: 48 hours
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted17 Oct 2008 (estimated)
- Study startJul 2004
- Primary completionSep 2006
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (1)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Spinal PunctureStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by Centre Leon BerardThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Supportive care
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 124 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Centre Leon Berard
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Hopital Debrousse
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT00775112
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- Lumbar puncture pillow
- Status last verified
- Oct 2008
- First submitted
- 16 Oct 2008
- Last updated
- 17 Oct 2008
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
Publications
Marec-Berard P, Bissery A, Kebaili K, Schell M, Aubert F, Gaillard S, Rabilloud M, Kassai B, Cornu C. A positioning pillow to improve lumbar puncture success rate in paediatric haematology-oncology patients: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Cancer. 2009 Jan 15;9:21. doi: 10.1186/1471-2407-9-21.
PubMed 19146666
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 17 Oct 2008. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Randomized Evaluation of a Positioning Pillow for Lumbar Puncture in Paediatric Hematology-Oncology
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT00775112
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- Lumbar puncture pillow
- Conditions
- Spinal Puncture
- Keywords
- supportive care, lumbar puncture, childhood disease, pediatric hemato-oncology
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 124 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Centre Leon BerardUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Hopital Debrousse
- Study start
- Jul 2004
- Primary completion
- Sep 2006
- First posted
- 17 Oct 2008 (estimated)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
We have developed a positioning cushion for LP which allows the child to be relaxed in an adequate position, and to maintain this position throughout LP. This study was aimed at evaluating the benefit of the device on the technical quality of LPs, on pain, anxiety, post LP syndrome, and on the satisfaction of children, their parents and caregivers.
The study was a two-centre, open, randomized trial, with two parallel groups. Children aged 2 to 18 years undergoing a LP were eligible, if not included in the study before. Those who had used the cushion before, with a medical reason preventing the use of the cushion, those refusing or whose parents refused could not be included. Randomization was stratified by centre.
Four cushion sizes were available for the age ranges: 2-6 years, 6-10 years, 10-15 and 15-18 years. The primary outcome was the rate of success, defined as a LP reaching its objective at the first attempt, without hemorrhage (visible hemorrhage or RBC > 50/mm3 in the CSF sample). Secondary outcomes included: the child's pain using a visual analogic scale (VAS), parents and caregiver perception of the child's pain (VAS); the children, parents, caregiver and physician performing the LP satisfaction; children cooperation using the "Le Baron Scale", and the occurrence of a post LP syndrome.
Detailed description
Our study was an open, randomized, controlled trial, with two parallel groups assigned to "LP pillow" or "no intervention" conducted in patients undergoing LP.
Participants Children aged 2 to 18 years undergoing an LP were eligible for inclusion. Children who had already participated or used the LP pillow, who had a medical condition (orthopaedic anomaly) contraindicating the use of the LP pillow or whose parents refused consent were excluded.
A permuted-block algorithm was used for randomization, with participants stratified according to centre. Concealed allocation was achieved by a phone call to the coordination centre after eligibility check and baseline data collection.
Intervention The LP pillow was made of polyethylene microcellular foam, coated with rubber to facilitate decontamination. It was placed on the thighs of the child sitting with the trunk leaning forward. This position ensures maximum lumbar flexion whereas resting the trunk on the pillow allows relaxation of paravertebral muscles. The axis of the body and the spinal column were maintained perfectly symmetrical in the sagittal plane (see illustration Fig 1).
The pillow included side supports for the head; the face remained uncovered so that the child could breathe and speak comfortably; this also facilitated nitrous oxide administration. Props supporting the patient's arms maintained the cervical column in a neutral position. An opening allowed touching the child's hands and forearms. Splints at the bottom side immobilized the child's thighs to ensure effective stabilization.
Four sizes were available corresponding approximately to the following age ranges: 2-6 years, 6-10 years, 10-15 and 15-18 years. Two sets were available for the study, one per centre.
Outcomes Primary outcome was the technical quality of the LP, classified as success or failure. A successful LP is defined as one that achieves its purpose (sampling and/or treatment) at the first attempt, without visible haemorrhage and with RBC < 50/mm3 in the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) sample (biochemical analysis).
Secondary outcomes included: child's pain, evaluated by self-administered visual analogical scales (VAS) for children over 6 years of age; parents' and caregivers' perception of the child's pain; satisfaction of the children, parents, caregivers and physician performing the LP assessed using verbal scoring; child cooperation rated with the "LeBaron Scale" (Lebaron 1984). Other outcomes included the number of attending persons (parents and/ or caregivers); duration of positioning and procedure; incidence, symptoms and duration of post-LP syndrome assessed 48 hours after LP by phone interview.
Data collection included anaesthetic, sedative and analgesic drugs used; needle size (19G, 20G, 22G); general status of the child evaluated with Karnofsky or Lansky score (Lansky 1985); platelet count; number of previous LP; date of and satisfaction with the last LP (verbal scale), practitioner experience in performing LP, presence of the parents, aim of the LP: diagnosis, therapeutic monitoring, treatment injection; amount of CSF removed (drops).
The study protocol was approved by the institutional review board of Lyon A - Hôtel-Dieu on June 8th 2004, and was conducted in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration. All parents gave written informed consent before participation of their child. Children were asked to give written consent when fully able to understand the proposed procedure.
Data were managed using CLININFO S.A. (France) software and services for clinical trial data management and quality control.
Sample size and statistical analysis The protocol initially included a total of 80 children. The sample size calculation was based on a rate of success of 70% in the control group and 95% in the pillow group, with 80%-power and 0.05 two-sided significance level (N Query® software). Based on the rate of success in the control group after inclusion of the 40th child, the sample size was re-estimated and increased to 124 children (62 per group) and the inclusion period was extended from 12 to 24 months. Comparisons between groups were performed using non parametric methods, i.e. the Wilcoxon rank test or the Fisher's exact test, depending on the nature of the variable. A logistic regression model was fitted to the platelet count and the number of LP prior to entering the study. An exploratory subgroup analysis was performed in children over 6 years of age. Comparisons with p-value less than 0.05 were considered significant. The STATA 9.2 (SatatCorp 2005. Stata Statistical Software: Release 9.0 College Station, TX: Satat Corporation) software was used to perform statistical analyses.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Supportive care
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Experimental | Device: pillowwith pillow |
| 2 | No intervention | –without pillow |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 2 to 18 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Child, Adult
Key inclusion criteria (1 listed)
- Children aged 2 to 18 years undergoing an LP
Key exclusion criteria (3 listed)
- Children who had already participated or used the LP pillow
- medical condition (orthopaedic anomaly) contraindicating the use of the LP pillow
- Parents refusal
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| pillowuse of pillow for lumbar punctures | Device | 1 |
Primary outcome
technical quality of the LP, classified as success or failure.
Time frame: immediate
4 secondary outcomes
child's pain
Time frame: immediate
satisfaction of the children, parents, caregivers and physician performing the LP assessed using verbal scoring;
Time frame: immediate
number of attending persons
Time frame: immediate
symptoms and duration of post-LP syndrome assessed 48 hours after LP
Time frame: 48 hours
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 17 Oct 2008.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 19146666Marec-Berard P, Bissery A, Kebaili K, Schell M, Aubert F, Gaillard S, Rabilloud M, Kassai B, Cornu C. A positioning pillow to improve lumbar puncture success rate in paediatric haematology-oncology patients: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Cancer. 2009 Jan 15;9:21. doi: 10.1186/1471-2407-9-21.
Related trials for Spinal Puncture
Active, not recruitingObservational study
The Effect of Magnesium on Post-spinal Headaches
Post-spinal Headache
RecruitingPhase 2/3
Oral Gabapentin Versus Intravenous Neostigmine/Atropine Versus Combination of Both for Prevention of PDPH
Postdural Puncture Headache (PDPH)
Not yet recruiting
The Effect of ShotBlocker on Symptoms of Pain, Anxiety, and Cortisol Hormone Levels
Pain, Anxiety
Not yet recruiting
Dural Puncture Epidural With 27G vs 26G Needles Versus Standard Epidural for Elective Cesarean Delivery
Cesarean Section, Anesthesia, Obstetrical
Not yet recruiting
Comparing Spinal, Epidural, and Dural Puncture Epidural Anesthesia for Cesarean Delivery: Hemodynamics and Block Quality
Hypotension After Neuraxial Anesthesia, Cesarean Section
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
The record lists no contact. Use the official record to reach the sponsor.
2 sites in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing pillow in people with Spinal Puncture, run by Centre Leon Berard at 2 sites in France.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 1 inclusion and 3 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 17 Oct 2008. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 2 sites in France. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
technical quality of the LP, classified as success or failure. (time frame: immediate). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT00775112, which also lists 1 linked publication.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 17 Oct 2008.