Optimizing Paediatric Hypospadias Surgical Repair: Pudendal Nerve Block Versus Caudal Block for Superior Analgesia.

IF 0.9 Q3 ANESTHESIOLOGY Turkish journal of anaesthesiology and reanimation Pub Date : 2025-05-30 Epub Date: 2025-04-09 DOI:10.4274/TJAR.2025.241773
Hemachander Sridharan, Nikhil Kesarkar, Raylene Dias
{"title":"Optimizing Paediatric Hypospadias Surgical Repair: Pudendal Nerve Block Versus Caudal Block for Superior Analgesia.","authors":"Hemachander Sridharan, Nikhil Kesarkar, Raylene Dias","doi":"10.4274/TJAR.2025.241773","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Postoperative pain control after hypospadias surgery can be challenging, and the effectiveness of caudal block (CB) for analgesia is limited. This study evaluated the analgesic efficacy of pudendal nerve block (PNB) using both ultrasound and a peripheral nerve stimulator (PNS), compared to a CB performed using landmark guidance, in paediatric patients undergoing hypospadias surgical repair.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 40 patients scheduled for hypospadias surgery were included in this prospective, randomized, double-blind controlled trial, who received either a PNB or a CB. Patients in the pudendal group received an ultrasound- and PNS-guided, PNB with a combination of bupivacaine (0.25%) at a dose of 0.5 mL kg<sup>-1</sup> and clonidine at a dose of 1 μg kg<sup>-1</sup>, whereas those in the caudal group received a landmark-guided CB with bupivacaine (0.25%) at a dose of 1 mL kg<sup>-1</sup> along with clonidine at a dose of 1 μg kg<sup>-1</sup>. The objective pain scale (OPS) was used to assess pain intensity in each group within 24 hours post-surgery. Perioperative hemodynamic changes and analgesic requirements were also recorded.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The CB provided effective analgesia, lasting an average of 6 hours. OPS scores at 6, 12, 18, and 24 hours after surgery were significantly lower in the PNB group than in the CB group. The PNB group had a significantly longer time to the need for initial analgesia, while the CB group required a significantly greater dose of paracetamol after surgery (<i>P</i> < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Findings from this study suggest that, at these doses, PNB is more effective than CB in providing longer-lasting pain relief, significantly lower pain scores, and a reduced need for postoperative analgesics.</p>","PeriodicalId":23353,"journal":{"name":"Turkish journal of anaesthesiology and reanimation","volume":" ","pages":"114-121"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12123649/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Turkish journal of anaesthesiology and reanimation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4274/TJAR.2025.241773","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/4/9 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Postoperative pain control after hypospadias surgery can be challenging, and the effectiveness of caudal block (CB) for analgesia is limited. This study evaluated the analgesic efficacy of pudendal nerve block (PNB) using both ultrasound and a peripheral nerve stimulator (PNS), compared to a CB performed using landmark guidance, in paediatric patients undergoing hypospadias surgical repair.

Methods: A total of 40 patients scheduled for hypospadias surgery were included in this prospective, randomized, double-blind controlled trial, who received either a PNB or a CB. Patients in the pudendal group received an ultrasound- and PNS-guided, PNB with a combination of bupivacaine (0.25%) at a dose of 0.5 mL kg-1 and clonidine at a dose of 1 μg kg-1, whereas those in the caudal group received a landmark-guided CB with bupivacaine (0.25%) at a dose of 1 mL kg-1 along with clonidine at a dose of 1 μg kg-1. The objective pain scale (OPS) was used to assess pain intensity in each group within 24 hours post-surgery. Perioperative hemodynamic changes and analgesic requirements were also recorded.

Results: The CB provided effective analgesia, lasting an average of 6 hours. OPS scores at 6, 12, 18, and 24 hours after surgery were significantly lower in the PNB group than in the CB group. The PNB group had a significantly longer time to the need for initial analgesia, while the CB group required a significantly greater dose of paracetamol after surgery (P < 0.001).

Conclusion: Findings from this study suggest that, at these doses, PNB is more effective than CB in providing longer-lasting pain relief, significantly lower pain scores, and a reduced need for postoperative analgesics.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

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
优化儿科尿道下裂手术修复:阴部神经阻滞与尾侧神经阻滞的优势镇痛。
目的:尿道下裂手术后疼痛控制具有挑战性,尾侧阻滞(CB)镇痛效果有限。本研究评估了使用超声和外周神经刺激器(PNS)的阴部神经阻滞(PNB)与使用地标引导的CB在接受尿道下裂手术修复的儿科患者中的镇痛效果。方法:在这项前瞻性、随机、双盲对照试验中,共有40例计划行尿道下裂手术的患者接受了PNB或CB。阴部组患者接受超声和pns引导下的PNB联合布比卡因(0.25%)0.5 mL kg-1和可乐定1 μg kg-1,而尾端组患者接受里程碑引导下的CB联合布比卡因(0.25%)1 mL kg-1和可乐定1 μg kg-1。采用客观疼痛量表(OPS)评估各组术后24小时内的疼痛强度。同时记录围手术期血流动力学变化和镇痛需求。结果:镇痛效果明显,镇痛时间平均为6小时。术后6、12、18、24小时,PNB组OPS评分明显低于CB组。PNB组术后需要初始镇痛的时间明显更长,而CB组术后需要更大剂量的扑热息痛(P < 0.001)。结论:本研究结果表明,在这些剂量下,PNB比CB更有效地提供更持久的疼痛缓解,显著降低疼痛评分,减少术后镇痛药的需求。
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
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
General and Regional Anaesthesia in Cancer Surgery: A 20-Year Bibliometric Analysis. Artificial Intelligence in Anaesthesiology: Current Applications, Challenges, and Future Directions. Knowledge, Practices, and Awareness Regarding Out-of-operating Room Sedation Among Non-anaesthesia Health Professionals: A Questionnaire Study. Current Trends in Anaesthesia Monitoring: A Survey Study. Automatic Gas Control Mode Versus Manual Minimal-flow and Medium-flow Anaesthesia in Breast Surgery: A Comparative 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:604180095
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