Key result
Spinal bupivacaine shortens time to rescue analgesia by ~28% versus caudal bupivacaine in pediatric surgeries.
Why the study?
The study aimed to investigate the safety and analgesic efficacy of spinal versus caudal bupivacaine combined with sevoflurane anesthesia in children undergoing infra-umbilical surgeries.
Does spinal bupivacaine improve analgesic efficacy and safety compared to caudal bupivacaine in children undergoing infra-umbilical surgeries?
RCT (n=130)
randomly assigned
Does spinal bupivacaine improve analgesic efficacy and safety compared to caudal bupivacaine in children undergoing infra-umbilical surgeries?
Absolute Event Rate: 6.6% vs 9.23%
p-value: p=<0.00
Spinal analgesia is a fairly comparable and suitable alternative to caudal analgesia in pediatric patients undergoing sub-umbilical surgeries, though it has a shorter duration of action before rescue analgesia is needed.
Caudal bupivacaine may be preferred for longer analgesia duration in pediatric infra-umbilical surgery; extends RCT comparison of spinal versus caudal techniques.
Background: Neuraxial analgesia may improve post-operative outcomes for high-risk children who are susceptible to respiratory complications (e.g. post-operative apnea). The use of spinal anesthesia in infants and children requiring surgeries of sub-umbilical region is gaining considerable popularity worldwide. Caudal analgesia along with general anesthesia is a very popular regional technique for prolonged post-operative analgesia in different pediatric surgical proce-dures where the surgical site is sub-umbilical. Bupivacaine has been thoroughly studied, and a large global experience exists.Aim of Study: Was to investigate the safety and analgesic efficacy of spinal versus caudal bupivacaine combined with sevoflurane anesthesia in children undergoing infra-umbilical surgeries.Material and Methods: One hundred thirty patients of either sex aged between 2-7 years, (ASA I or II) were randomly assigned into two groups of 65 subjects each; Group A (caudal bupivaciane group) and Group B (spinal bupivaciane group). Group A received caudal isobaric bupivacaine, Group B received spinal hyper baric bupivacaine. Both after anesthesia induction and before surgery. Assessment parameters included; time to 1st oral rescue analgesics, post-operative (FLACC scale), post-operative agitation, post-operative motor block component, haemodynamics, perioperative adverse effect.Results: There were no significant differences between the two studied groups in the mean post-operative FLACC scores at any time except in the second post-operative hour in the spinal group (0.84±0.07 Vs. 1.13±0.08, p<0.01). The time to first request for rescue analgesia was significantly lower in the spinal group (6.60±1.82 Vs. 9.23±2.47, p<0.00), compared with the caudal group. There were no differences between the two studied groups in the total IV paracetamol consumption in the 1st 24h post-operatively (p=0.0674). There were no significant differences in the mean post-operative modified bromage scale scores between the two studied groups at any time. The block was associated with few complications in both groups.Conclusion: This study demonstrated that the spinal analgesia is fairly comparable to caudal analgesia in pediatric patients undergoing sub-umbilical surgeries. And we recom-mend the addition of an adjuvant to the intrathecal bupivacaine to prolong its analgesic effect making spinal analgesia a suitable alternative to caudal analgesia.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ali et al. (2019) conducted an RCT in Infra-umbilical surgeries (n=130). Spinal hyperbaric bupivacaine vs. Caudal isobaric bupivacaine was evaluated on Time to first request for rescue analgesia (p=<0.00). Spinal bupivacaine resulted in a significantly shorter time to first request for rescue analgesia compared to caudal bupivacaine (6.60 vs 9.23, p<0.00) in pediatric infra-umbilical surgeries.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: