Ultrasound-guided versus Conventional Caudal Blocks in Children: A Randomised Clinical Study

被引:0
作者
Muthukrishnan, Mythreyi [1 ]
Dixit, Nischala [1 ]
Jain, Karthik [1 ]
Ollapally, Anjali T. M. [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] St Johns Med Coll, Dept Anaesthesiol, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India
[2] St Johns Med Coll, Dept Anaesthesiol, Bengaluru 560034, Karnataka, India
关键词
Attempts; Bupivacaine; Block performance; Inguinal hernia; INJECTION; GUIDANCE;
D O I
10.7860/JCDR/2023/60772.18262
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Introduction: Caudal epidural block is a popular regional anesthetic technique in children undergoing infraumbilical surgeries. Conventionally, a landmark-guided method is used to perform caudal epidural blocks. Although widely practiced, this method is associated with procedural difficulties such as multiple attempts, decreased success rates at the first puncture, as well as higher rates of complications including dural puncture, rectal injury, and intraosseous/intravenous (i.v.)/subcutaneous injections. In order to overcome the shortcomings of the conventional technique, various other methods have been described in clinical practice, including imaging-assisted techniques with fluoroscopy and Ultrasound (US). Aim: To compare the overall block success rates between the conventional and US-guided methods of caudal blocks in children. Materials and Methods: The present randomised clinical study was conducted in the Department of Anesthesiology, St. John's Medical College, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India, from November 2019 to September 2021. Sixty-four children, aged 1-8 years, belonging to the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status grade I and II, and undergoing elective inguinal hernial surgery were included in the study. After induction of general anesthesia, the children were administered caudal blocks based on the assigned groups: group A (conventional) - patients were given 0.5 mL/kg of 0.25% bupivacaine after the needle entered the sacral canal, and group B (USG) - patients were given 0.5 mL/kg of 0.25% bupivacaine immediately after the needle was visualised piercing the sacrococcygeal ligament in the longitudinal view. The parameters studied were overall block success rates, block performance times, and the number of attempts taken. Descriptive statistics were reported using mean +/- Standard Deviation ( SD) for continuous variables and number or percentage for categorical variables. Independent t-test and Mann-Whitney U test were used for normally distributed and non-normally distributed variables, respectively. Chi-square test was used to analyse differences between categorical variables. Results: A total of 64 children of both genders, aged 1-8 years, belonging to ASA physical status I and II, were included in the study. Overall block success rates were comparable between the two groups, with 28 (87.5%) in group A and 30 (93.8%) in group B. The mean block performance time was longer in group B (2.781 +/- 1.2439 minutes) compared to group A (1.578 +/- 0.5835 minutes) (p-value< 0.001). The number of attempts was lower in group B, with 100% success in the first attempt, as opposed to 68.8% in group A (p-value<0.05). Conclusion: Ultrasound-guided caudal block does not improve overall block success rates or block performance time, but it does improve success rates at the first attempt and thereby reduces the number of attempts.
引用
收藏
页码:UC1 / UC4
页数:4
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Dexmedetomedine Versus Fentanyl For Ultrasound Guided Caudal Block In pediatrics. A Randomized Controlled Study
    Elassar, Heba M.
    Abdallateef, Howaida K.
    AIN SHAMS JOURNAL OF ANESTHESIOLOGY, 2024, 16 (01)
  • [32] Transverse plane ultrasound-guided caudal epidural injections: sonographic anatomy and stepwise technique
    Inklebarger, James
    Totlis, Trifon
    Feigl, Georg
    Tishukov, Maksim
    Galanis, Nikiforos
    SURGICAL AND RADIOLOGIC ANATOMY, 2021, 43 (09) : 1527 - 1535
  • [33] Evaluation of ultrasound-guided radial artery cannulation in children
    Ganesh, Arjunan
    Kaye, Robin
    Cahill, Anne Marie
    Stern, Whitney
    Pachikara, Reshma
    Gallagher, Paul R.
    Watcha, Mehernoor
    Pediatric Critical Care Medicine, 2009, 10 (01) : 45 - 48
  • [34] Levobupivacaine and Dexmedetomidine versus Ropivacaine and Dexmedetomidine for Ultrasound-guided Supraclavicular Brachial Plexus Block: A Randomised Controlled Trial
    Batool, Sofia
    Rai, Ram Bahadur
    Yougyal, Tsering
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL AND DIAGNOSTIC RESEARCH, 2025, 19 (03) : UC26 - UC31
  • [35] Palpation Versus Ultrasound-Guided Acromioclavicular Joint Intra-articular Corticosteroid Injections: A Retrospective Comparative Clinical Study
    Park, Ki Deok
    Kim, Tai Kon
    Lee, Jihae
    Lee, Woo Yong
    Ahn, Jae Ki
    Park, Yongbum
    PAIN PHYSICIAN, 2015, 18 (04) : 333 - 341
  • [36] Combined Approach Versus 2 Conventional Approaches in Ultrasound-Guided Central Venous Catheterization: A Randomized Controlled Trial
    Takeshita, Jun
    Nishiyama, Kei
    Fukumoto, Atsushi
    Shime, Nobuaki
    JOURNAL OF CARDIOTHORACIC AND VASCULAR ANESTHESIA, 2019, 33 (11) : 2979 - 2984
  • [37] Standard versus ultrasound-guided radial and femoral access in coronary angiography and intervention (SURF): a randomised controlled trial
    Phong Nguyen
    Makris, Angela
    Hennessy, Annemarie
    Jayanti, Sumedh
    Wang, Alexandra
    Park, Kevin
    Chen, Vanessa
    Tram Nguyen
    Lo, Sidney
    Xuan, Wei
    Leung, Melissa
    Juergens, Craig
    EUROINTERVENTION, 2019, 15 (06) : E522 - +
  • [38] The role of ultrasound-guided single-shot femoral and sciatic nerve blocks on pain management after total knee arthroplasty
    Kim, Young-Mo
    Kang, Chan
    Joo, Yong-Bum
    Lee, Soong-Hyun
    KNEE, 2019, 26 (04) : 881 - 888
  • [39] Ultrasound-guided versus landmark in knee arthrocentesis: A systematic review
    Wu, Tao
    Dong, Yan
    Song, Hai Xin
    Fu, Yu
    Li, Jian Hua
    SEMINARS IN ARTHRITIS AND RHEUMATISM, 2016, 45 (05) : 627 - 632
  • [40] Blind versus ultrasound-guided maxillary nerve block in donkeys
    Hagag, Usama
    Tawfiek, Mohamed G.
    VETERINARY ANAESTHESIA AND ANALGESIA, 2018, 45 (01) : 103 - 110