Low-dose caudal versus dorsal penile nerve block for postoperative analgesia after circumcision: a randomized comparative study.

IF 1.6 Q2 ANESTHESIOLOGY Anaesthesiology intensive therapy Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.5114/ait.2023.132869
Mayar Hassan El Sersi, Mohamed Sidky Mahmoud Zaki, Samar Sobhi Elnaggar, Ramy Mahrose
{"title":"Low-dose caudal versus dorsal penile nerve block for postoperative analgesia after circumcision: a randomized comparative study.","authors":"Mayar Hassan El Sersi, Mohamed Sidky Mahmoud Zaki, Samar Sobhi Elnaggar, Ramy Mahrose","doi":"10.5114/ait.2023.132869","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Paediatric male circumcision is a painful surgical procedure, which is usually carried out under general anaesthesia. Regional analgesic techniques, including dorsal penile nerve block (DPNB) and caudal nerve block (CNB), are superior to opioid and non-opioid systemic analgesia for postoperative pain control after circumcision.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>The purpose of our study was to compare the efficacy, duration of postoperative analgesia, and complications of DPNB, CNB, and the combination of 2 blocks. Eighty-one male patients aged from 3 to 12 years scheduled for circumcision were distributed into 3 groups, each consisting of 27 patients; group 1 (DPNB group), group 2 (CNB group), and group 3 for combined blockade. This study compared the 3 groups in terms of intraoperative vital signs: heart rate and blood pressure, postoperative Wong-Baker score, and complications (nausea, vomiting, pruritus, urinary retention, and constipation).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The intraoperative haemodynamics did not differ between the 3 groups of the study. There is significant difference in the Wong-Baker scale postoperatively at 1, 3, and 24 hours, being significantly less in the CNB group and combined blockade group than in the DPNB group, but there was no significant difference between the CNB group and the combined blockade group. The incidence of complications showed no significant intergroup difference, except for urinary retention being lower with DPNB.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Both caudal and combined blockade were superior to DPNB for intraoperative and postoperative analgesia after circumcision. CNB and combined blockade was associated with significantly higher incidence of urinary retention compared to DPNB. Also, there was no additional benefit to the analgesic efficacy from combining both blocks.</p>","PeriodicalId":7750,"journal":{"name":"Anaesthesiology intensive therapy","volume":"55 4","pages":"297-303"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10691451/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anaesthesiology intensive therapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5114/ait.2023.132869","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Paediatric male circumcision is a painful surgical procedure, which is usually carried out under general anaesthesia. Regional analgesic techniques, including dorsal penile nerve block (DPNB) and caudal nerve block (CNB), are superior to opioid and non-opioid systemic analgesia for postoperative pain control after circumcision.

Material and methods: The purpose of our study was to compare the efficacy, duration of postoperative analgesia, and complications of DPNB, CNB, and the combination of 2 blocks. Eighty-one male patients aged from 3 to 12 years scheduled for circumcision were distributed into 3 groups, each consisting of 27 patients; group 1 (DPNB group), group 2 (CNB group), and group 3 for combined blockade. This study compared the 3 groups in terms of intraoperative vital signs: heart rate and blood pressure, postoperative Wong-Baker score, and complications (nausea, vomiting, pruritus, urinary retention, and constipation).

Results: The intraoperative haemodynamics did not differ between the 3 groups of the study. There is significant difference in the Wong-Baker scale postoperatively at 1, 3, and 24 hours, being significantly less in the CNB group and combined blockade group than in the DPNB group, but there was no significant difference between the CNB group and the combined blockade group. The incidence of complications showed no significant intergroup difference, except for urinary retention being lower with DPNB.

Conclusions: Both caudal and combined blockade were superior to DPNB for intraoperative and postoperative analgesia after circumcision. CNB and combined blockade was associated with significantly higher incidence of urinary retention compared to DPNB. Also, there was no additional benefit to the analgesic efficacy from combining both blocks.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
包皮环切术后镇痛的低剂量阴茎尾部神经阻滞与阴茎背神经阻滞:随机对比研究。
简介小儿包皮环切术是一项痛苦的外科手术,通常在全身麻醉的情况下进行。区域镇痛技术,包括阴茎背神经阻滞(DPNB)和尾神经阻滞(CNB),在包皮环切术后疼痛控制方面优于阿片类和非阿片类全身镇痛:我们的研究旨在比较 DPNB、CNB 和两种阻滞联合应用的疗效、术后镇痛持续时间和并发症。81名年龄在3至12岁之间的包皮环切术男性患者被分为3组,每组27人;第1组(DPNB组)、第2组(CNB组)和第3组(联合阻滞组)。该研究比较了 3 组患者术中的生命体征:心率和血压、术后 Wong-Baker 评分以及并发症(恶心、呕吐、瘙痒、尿潴留和便秘):结果:三组患者的术中血流动力学无差异。术后1、3和24小时的Wong-Baker量表有明显差异,CNB组和联合阻断组明显低于DPNB组,但CNB组和联合阻断组之间无明显差异。并发症的发生率在组间无明显差异,只有尿潴留发生率在DPNB组较低:结论:在包皮环切术后的术中和术后镇痛方面,尾部阻滞和联合阻滞均优于 DPNB。与 DPNB 相比,CNB 和联合阻滞的尿潴留发生率明显更高。此外,两种阻滞联合使用也没有额外的镇痛效果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
5.90%
发文量
48
审稿时长
25 weeks
期刊最新文献
A randomised controlled trial to compare blind intubation success through LMA Blockbuster® and I-Gel® LMA. Can't intubate, can't oxygenate? What is the preferred surgical strategy? A retrospective analysis. Measures of preoperative anxiety: Part two. Navigating through the paradox of choice: prediction of outcome in aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage. Nutritional management in critically ill patients with COVID-19: a retrospective multicentre study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1