This article requires a subscription to view the full text. If you have a subscription you may use the login form below to view the article. Access to this article can also be purchased.
Abstract
Background and Objectives Novel diagnostic techniques and neurologic biomarkers have greatly expanded clinical indications for CSF studies. CSF is most commonly obtained via lumbar puncture (LP). Although it is generally believed that LPs are well tolerated, there is a lack of supportive data for this claim, and patients anticipate LP to be painful. The objective of this study was to prospectively investigate discordance between patient perception and tolerability of LP.
Methods Adult patients were surveyed before and after LP regarding their perceptions and experience of LP. Physician perceptions were gathered through a web-based survey. Relative risk and Spearman correlation were used to assess the relationship between responses. Paired binomial and paired ordinal responses were compared by McNemar and paired Wilcoxon rank-sum tests.
Results A total of 178 patients completed the surveys. About half of the patients (58%) reported anxiety pre-LP, at median 3.0 of 10. Physicians overpredicted patients' pre-LP anxiety (median score 5.0, p < 0.001). Experienced pain was significantly less than predicted pain (median scores 0 and 3.0, respectively, p < 0.001). Patients who predicted pain were more likely to report pain from LP (relative risk [RR] 1.3). Predicting pain was also correlated with anxiety before LP (p < 0.001).
Discussion LP was generally well tolerated. The majority of patients experienced minimal pain. Anticipation of pain was correlated with both feeling anxious and experiencing pain. The results of this study can be used to reassure patients and providers that LP is indeed not as painful as imagined, which may both reduce pre-LP anxiety and improve LP tolerability.
Footnotes
Funding information and disclosures are provided at the end of the article. Full disclosure form information provided by the authors is available with the full text of this article at Neurology.org/cp.
Submitted and externally peer reviewed. The handling editor was Deputy Editor Kathryn Kvam, MD.
- Received January 11, 2022.
- Accepted April 26, 2022.
- © 2022 American Academy of Neurology
AAN Members
We have changed the login procedure to improve access between AAN.com and the Neurology journals. If you are experiencing issues, please log out of AAN.com and clear history and cookies. (For instructions by browser, please click the instruction pages below). After clearing, choose preferred Journal and select login for AAN Members. You will be redirected to a login page where you can log in with your AAN ID number and password. When you are returned to the Journal, your name should appear at the top right of the page.
AAN Non-Member Subscribers
Purchase access
The Nerve!: Rapid online correspondence
REQUIREMENTS
You must ensure that your Disclosures have been updated within the previous six months. Please go to our Submission Site to add or update your Disclosure information.
Your co-authors must send a completed Publishing Agreement Form to Neurology Staff (not necessary for the lead/corresponding author as the form below will suffice) before you upload your comment.
If you are responding to a comment that was written about an article you originally authored:
You (and co-authors) do not need to fill out forms or check disclosures as author forms are still valid
and apply to letter.
Submission specifications:
- Submissions must be < 200 words with < 5 references. Reference 1 must be the article on which you are commenting.
- Submissions should not have more than 5 authors. (Exception: original author replies can include all original authors of the article)
- Submit only on articles published within 6 months of issue date.
- Do not be redundant. Read any comments already posted on the article prior to submission.
- Submitted comments are subject to editing and editor review prior to posting.
