Nerve stimulation guided bilateral pudendal nerve block versus landmark-based caudal block for hypospadias repair in young children: a prospective, randomized, pragmatic trial

D. Choudhry, L. Heredia, B. Brenn, Melinda Brown, Norman F Carvalho, Milicent C Whaley, Sadiq S Shaik, J. Hagerty, Ahmad Bani Hani
{"title":"Nerve stimulation guided bilateral pudendal nerve block versus landmark-based caudal block for hypospadias repair in young children: a prospective, randomized, pragmatic trial","authors":"D. Choudhry, L. Heredia, B. Brenn, Melinda Brown, Norman F Carvalho, Milicent C Whaley, Sadiq S Shaik, J. Hagerty, Ahmad Bani Hani","doi":"10.1136/rapm-2022-103680","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction Caudal block is frequently performed to provide analgesia for hypospadias repair. Literature suggests that pudendal block provides prolonged postoperative analgesia as compared with caudal block in children between 2 and 5 years. We compared the efficacy of pudendal and caudal blocks in children less than 2 years. Methods 60 children scheduled for hypospadias repair received standard general anesthesia along with either pudendal or caudal block (groups of 30 each). Variables collected were demographic data, block time, operating room time, intraoperative pain medication need, pain assessment score and medication need in the recovery room and pain assessment at home. Result Groups were demographically similar. No differences were observed in the following recorded times (minutes): block procedure (caudal: 9.5±4.0, pudendal: 10.6±4.1, p=0.30), anesthesia (caudal: 17.3±5.3, pudendal: 17.7±4.3, p=0.75), total OR (caudal: 171±35, pudendal: 172±41; p=0.95) and postanesthesia care unit (PACU) stay (caudal: 88±37, pudendal: 86±42; p=0.80). Additionally, no differences were observed in rescue pain medication need in the operating room (caudal: 0, pudendal: 2 (p=0.49), in PACU (caudal: 4, pudendal: 4, p=0.99), pain assessed at home, time to pain level 2 (caudal: 13.93±8.9, pudendal: 15.17±8.7), average pain scores (p=0.67) and total pain free epochs (pain level of zero) (p=0.80) in the first 24 hours. Discussion In children less than 2 years, both blocks provide comparable intraoperative and postoperative pain relief in the first 24 hours after hypospadias surgery. Trial registration number NCT03145415.","PeriodicalId":21046,"journal":{"name":"Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/rapm-2022-103680","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Introduction Caudal block is frequently performed to provide analgesia for hypospadias repair. Literature suggests that pudendal block provides prolonged postoperative analgesia as compared with caudal block in children between 2 and 5 years. We compared the efficacy of pudendal and caudal blocks in children less than 2 years. Methods 60 children scheduled for hypospadias repair received standard general anesthesia along with either pudendal or caudal block (groups of 30 each). Variables collected were demographic data, block time, operating room time, intraoperative pain medication need, pain assessment score and medication need in the recovery room and pain assessment at home. Result Groups were demographically similar. No differences were observed in the following recorded times (minutes): block procedure (caudal: 9.5±4.0, pudendal: 10.6±4.1, p=0.30), anesthesia (caudal: 17.3±5.3, pudendal: 17.7±4.3, p=0.75), total OR (caudal: 171±35, pudendal: 172±41; p=0.95) and postanesthesia care unit (PACU) stay (caudal: 88±37, pudendal: 86±42; p=0.80). Additionally, no differences were observed in rescue pain medication need in the operating room (caudal: 0, pudendal: 2 (p=0.49), in PACU (caudal: 4, pudendal: 4, p=0.99), pain assessed at home, time to pain level 2 (caudal: 13.93±8.9, pudendal: 15.17±8.7), average pain scores (p=0.67) and total pain free epochs (pain level of zero) (p=0.80) in the first 24 hours. Discussion In children less than 2 years, both blocks provide comparable intraoperative and postoperative pain relief in the first 24 hours after hypospadias surgery. Trial registration number NCT03145415.
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
神经刺激引导的双侧阴部神经阻滞与基于里程碑的尾侧神经阻滞治疗幼儿尿道下裂修复:一项前瞻性,随机,实用的试验
尾侧阻滞是尿道下裂修补术中常用的镇痛方法。文献表明,在2 - 5岁的儿童中,与尾侧阻滞相比,阴部阻滞能延长术后镇痛时间。我们比较了2岁以下儿童的阴部阻滞和尾部阻滞的疗效。方法尿道下裂修补术患儿60例,采用标准全麻加阴部阻滞或尾部阻滞,每组30例。收集的变量包括人口统计数据、阻滞时间、手术室时间、术中止痛药需求、康复室疼痛评估评分和药物需求以及家中疼痛评估。结果两组人口统计学相似。以下记录时间(分钟):阻滞手术(尾侧:9.5±4.0,阴部:10.6±4.1,p=0.30),麻醉(尾侧:17.3±5.3,阴部:17.7±4.3,p=0.75),总OR(尾侧:171±35,阴部:172±41;p=0.95)和麻醉后护理单位(PACU)住院时间(尾侧:88±37,阴部:86±42;p = 0.80)。此外,两组患者在手术室(尾侧:0,阴部:2 (p=0.49))、PACU(尾侧:4,阴部:4,p=0.99)、家中疼痛评估、达到疼痛2级的时间(尾侧:13.93±8.9,阴部:15.17±8.7)、平均疼痛评分(p=0.67)和前24小时总无疼痛时间(疼痛0级)(p=0.80)方面均无差异。在2岁以下的儿童中,两种阻滞在尿道下裂手术后的前24小时内提供了相当的术中和术后疼痛缓解。试验注册号NCT03145415。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Optimal techniques of ultrasound-guided superficial and deep parasternal intercostal plane blocks—a cadaveric study Multimodal analgesia and the erector spinae plane block in a rapid recovery pathway after posterior spinal fusion in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a randomized controlled study of practicality In reply: evaluating the efficacy of PENG and SIFICB in hip fracture analgesia – a critical analysis Invited reply letter: optimal techniques of ultrasound-guided superficial and deep parasternal intercostal plane blocks – a cadaveric study Postoperative epidural analgesia and outcomes following pediatric bilateral lung and heart-lung transplantation: a retrospective observational 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