Benjamin Y Andrew, Kayla E Pfaff, Sarah Jooste, Lisa M Einhorn
{"title":"Factors associated with the use of regional anesthesia for calcaneal osteotomy in pediatric patients: A single-center, retrospective cohort study.","authors":"Benjamin Y Andrew, Kayla E Pfaff, Sarah Jooste, Lisa M Einhorn","doi":"10.1111/pan.15030","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Despite known disparities in pediatric perioperative outcomes, few studies have examined factors associated with the use of regional anesthesia for pediatric orthopedic surgery.</p><p><strong>Aims: </strong>This investigation aimed to determine if minority and developmental disability status were associated with the allocation of peripheral nerve blocks in calcaneal osteotomy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a single-center, retrospective study of records of patients <18 years who underwent calcaneal osteotomy from 2013 to 2022. Regional technique was classified into three groups: popliteal-sciatic single-shot block, popliteal-sciatic catheter, and no block. Patients were classified as either nonminority (white, non-Hispanic) or minority. Developmental disability status was defined based on medical history and classified as binary. Anesthesiologists were classified as \"regional\" or \"nonregional\" based on clinical expertise. A Bayesian hierarchical multinomial model with random intercepts for patients and surgeons was used to investigate the association of minority status, developmental disability, and anesthesiologist expertise with block selection.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We analyzed 287 cases in 225 patients; of these, 55% occurred in minority patients and 28% occurred in patients with developmental disability. Catheters were placed in 45% of cases, single shot blocks in 41%, and no block in 14%. Minority and nonminority patients had a similar likelihood of receiving of any block. Patients with developmental disability had a -22% absolute difference of receiving any block (95% credible interval [-38%, -7%]) compared to those without developmental disability (55% vs. 77%), an effect primarily driven by a lower rate of catheter placement in these children. Regional anesthesiologists were more likely to place catheters (23% absolute increase; 36% vs. 13%) and more likely to perform any block in children with developmental disability (30% absolute increase; 67% vs. 37%) than nonregional anesthesiologists.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Decision-making surrounding the placement of regional anesthesia techniques is complex. In this study, developmental disability status and anesthesiologist experience were associated with a difference in the use of regional anesthesia in patients undergoing calcaneal osteotomy.</p>","PeriodicalId":19745,"journal":{"name":"Pediatric Anesthesia","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pediatric Anesthesia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/pan.15030","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Despite known disparities in pediatric perioperative outcomes, few studies have examined factors associated with the use of regional anesthesia for pediatric orthopedic surgery.
Aims: This investigation aimed to determine if minority and developmental disability status were associated with the allocation of peripheral nerve blocks in calcaneal osteotomy.
Methods: We conducted a single-center, retrospective study of records of patients <18 years who underwent calcaneal osteotomy from 2013 to 2022. Regional technique was classified into three groups: popliteal-sciatic single-shot block, popliteal-sciatic catheter, and no block. Patients were classified as either nonminority (white, non-Hispanic) or minority. Developmental disability status was defined based on medical history and classified as binary. Anesthesiologists were classified as "regional" or "nonregional" based on clinical expertise. A Bayesian hierarchical multinomial model with random intercepts for patients and surgeons was used to investigate the association of minority status, developmental disability, and anesthesiologist expertise with block selection.
Results: We analyzed 287 cases in 225 patients; of these, 55% occurred in minority patients and 28% occurred in patients with developmental disability. Catheters were placed in 45% of cases, single shot blocks in 41%, and no block in 14%. Minority and nonminority patients had a similar likelihood of receiving of any block. Patients with developmental disability had a -22% absolute difference of receiving any block (95% credible interval [-38%, -7%]) compared to those without developmental disability (55% vs. 77%), an effect primarily driven by a lower rate of catheter placement in these children. Regional anesthesiologists were more likely to place catheters (23% absolute increase; 36% vs. 13%) and more likely to perform any block in children with developmental disability (30% absolute increase; 67% vs. 37%) than nonregional anesthesiologists.
Conclusions: Decision-making surrounding the placement of regional anesthesia techniques is complex. In this study, developmental disability status and anesthesiologist experience were associated with a difference in the use of regional anesthesia in patients undergoing calcaneal osteotomy.
期刊介绍:
Devoted to the dissemination of research of interest and importance to practising anesthetists everywhere, the scientific and clinical content of Pediatric Anesthesia covers a wide selection of medical disciplines in all areas relevant to paediatric anaesthesia, pain management and peri-operative medicine. The International Editorial Board is supported by the Editorial Advisory Board and a team of Senior Advisors, to ensure that the journal is publishing the best work from the front line of research in the field. The journal publishes high-quality, relevant scientific and clinical research papers, reviews, commentaries, pro-con debates, historical vignettes, correspondence, case presentations and book reviews.