Caudal block in children: ropivacaine compared with bupivacaine.

BACKGROUND: Bupivacaine provides reliable, long-lasting anesthesia and analgesia when given via the caudal route. Ropivacaine is a newer, long-acting local anesthetic that (at a concentration providing similar pain relief) has less motor nerve blockade and may have less cardiotoxicity than bupivacaine. METHODS: In a double-blind trial, 81 healthy children, undergoing ambulatory surgical procedures, were randomly allocated to receive caudal analgesia with either bupivacaine or ropivacaine, 0.25%, 1 mVkg. All blocks were placed by an attending anesthesiologist or an anesthesia fellow after induction of general anesthesia. RESULTS: Data were available for 75 children. There were no significant differences between the two groups in baseline characteristics or in anesthesia, surgery, recovery room, or day surgery unit durations. The quality and duration of postoperative pain relief did not differ. Motor and sensory effects were similar. Time to first micturition did not differ. CONCLUSION: Ropivacaine (0.25%, 1 ml/kg) provided adequate postoperative analgesia with no difference from bupivacaine (0.25%, 1 ml/kg) in quality and duration of pain relief, motor and sensory effects, or time to first micturition in our study children.     

Caudal neostigmine for postoperative analgesia in paediatric surgery

BACKGROUND: This study was conducted to evaluate analgesia and side-effects of caudal neostigmine coadministered with bupivacaine in paediatric surgery. METHODS: We studied children, aged 1-5 years, undergoing elective surgery (inguinal hernia and hypospadias). After standard induction of anaesthesia, caudal anaesthesia was performed. Group 1 received 0.25% bupivacaine 0.5 ml.kg-1 and Group 2 received 0.25% bupivacaine 0.5 ml x kg-1 with 1 microg x kg-1 neostigmine via the caudal route. Heart rate, mean arterial pressure, peripheral oxygen saturation were recorded before induction, after induction but before caudal anaesthesia, and then every 5 min after caudal anaesthesia. Haemodynamic, Toddler, Preschooler, Postoperative Pain Scale (TPPPS) pain score and sedation score values were recorded 30 min after extubation and at hours 2, 4, 6, 12 and 24. A pain score >3/10 resulted in administration of rectal paracetamol. The duration of postoperative analgesia was defined as the time between caudal drug injection and the first rectal paracetamol administration. RESULTS: There were no differences between the groups in demographic and haemodynamic date, duration of surgery and anaesthesia, time to extubation or sedation scores. The duration of postoperative pain relief did not differ between the two groups; 15.40 +/- 10.97 h for group 1 vs. 15.45 +/- 10.99 h for group 2 (P > 0.05). The incidence of nausea (three patients in group 2 and one patient in group 1) was not statistically significant. No other side-effects were seen. CONCLUSIONS: We found that a single caudal injection of 1 microg x kg-1 neostigmine mixed with bupivacaine offers no significant advantage over bupivacaine alone for postoperative pain relief in children undergoing genitourinary surgery.     

Caudal 0.2% ropivacaine is less effective during surgery than 0.2% levobupivacaine and 0.2% bupivacaine: a double-blind, randomized, controlled trial

BACKGROUND: We hypothesized that without the analgesic effects of volatile anesthetics, caudal 0.20% ropivacaine would be less effective during surgical stimulation than 0.20% bupivacaine or 0.20% levobupivacaine. This trial was designed to examine whether the combination of a caudal block with 0.20% ropivacaine and i.v. anesthesia resulted in reduced analgesic efficacy during surgery compared with caudal 0.20% levobupivacaine or 0.20% bupivacaine in children. METHODS: Ninety ASA I-II children between 1 and 7 years old, scheduled for inguinal hernia repair or orchidopexy under propofol anesthesia were randomized to receive a caudal block with 1 ml x kg(-1) of 0.2% bupivacaine, 0.2% ropivacaine or 0.2% levobupivacaine. The primary outcome measure of the study was the clinical efficacy of the caudal block during surgery. Secondary outcome measures were postoperative pain relief and residual motor blockade. RESULTS: Four children were excluded and 86 were analyzed. The proportion of children with effective caudal block during surgery was significantly higher in children receiving levobupivacaine (26/28) or bupivacaine (27/29) compared with patients receiving ropivacaine (21/29) (P = 0.03). There were no significant differences among groups in the analgesic onset time (P = 0.1), incidence of residual motor blockade (P = 0.4), number of patients requiring analgesia after operation or in the time from caudal injection to the first administration of analgesic medication (P = 0.3). CONCLUSIONS: Combined with propofol anesthesia, 0.2% levobupivacaine and 0.2% bupivacaine are more effective than 0.2% ropivacaine for caudal use in children undergoing inguinal hernia repair or orchidopexy.     

Reducing Pain after Inguinal Hernia Repair in Children: Caudal Anesthesia versus Ketorolac Tromethamine

Background: The optimal method to achieve analgesia after inguinal hernia repair in children is unknown. This study compared the analgesic efficacy, adverse events, and the costs associated with supplementation of local anesthesia (infiltration of the wound) with either intravenous ketorolac or caudal analgesia in children having inguinal hernia repair.

Methods: With parental consent and institutional review board approval, children aged 2-6 yr having elective, outpatient inguinal hernia repair were studied in this randomized, single-blinded investigation. Anesthesia was induced by inhalation with nitrous oxide and halothane or intravenously with propofol. Anesthesia was maintained with nitrous oxide and halothane. Patients were randomly assigned to receive caudal analgesia (1 ml/kg 0.20% bupivacaine with 1/200,000 epinephrine) or intravenous ketorolac (1 mg/kg) immediately after induction of anesthesia. Both groups received field blocks with 0.25% bupivacaine administered by the surgeon under direct vision during operation. Patients were assessed for 24 h. In-hospital pain was assessed using a behavior-based pain score. Parents assessed pain with a visual linear analog pain scale with anchors of 0 (no pain) and 100 (worst pain imaginable).

Results: The authors studied 164 children, with 84 patients in the ketorolac group. The groups had similar demographic data. In-hospital analgesic requirements and pain scores were almost identical in both groups. Pain at home was significantly less in the ketorolac group, with visual linear analog pain scale scores of 10 (0-80) compared with 20 (0-80) (median [range]) for ketorolac versus caudal (P = 0.002 by the Mann-Whitney U test). The ketorolac group also had a lower incidence of vomiting, ambulated more rapidly, and micturated earlier (P < 0.05).     

Caudal clonidine and bupivacaine for combined epidural and general anaesthesia in children

Background: Clonidine produces analgesia by actions on α₂-ad-renoceptors and enhances both sensory and motor blockade from epidural injection of local anaesthetics. Low-dose clonidine has been used so far for caudal injection in children. Our aim was to study the perioperative effects of high-dose caudal clonidine when added to low concentration of bupivacaine for combined epidural and general anaesthesia in children. Methods: After induction of general anaesthesia caudal block was performed either with 1 ml kg^-1 bupivacaine 0.175% with the addition of clonidine 5 μg kg^-1 (n=20), or with 1 ml kg^-1bupivacaine 0.175% (n=20). The intraoperative anaesthetic requirements, the perioperative haemodynamic effects, respiratory rate, sedation score, postoperative pain scores and side effects were assessed by a blinded observer. A patient-controlled analgesia system was used for postoperative pain relief. The quality of postoperative pain relief was assessed using Smiley's pain analogue scale. Results: Intraoperative haemodynamic responses did not differ between the groups. However, during emergence from general anaesthesia children in the clonidine group had significantly lower heart rates and blood pressures compared to children in the control group. In addition, heart rates and blood pressures were also lower in the clonidine group in the early postoperative period (P?< 0.05). Postoperative analgesia was significantly better in the clonidine group as evidenced by the total number of requests (3 vs 12, P< 0.05) and the total amount of tramadol (20.5 mg vs 72.8 mg, P < 0.05) administered. The duration of the caudal analgesia was significantly longer in the clonidine group (20.9±7.4 h vs 14.4±10.9 h, P< 0.05). Conclusion: Our results suggest that caudal clonidine 5 μg kg^-1 enhances and prolongs caudal blockade with bupivacaine 0.175% in children. It also blocks sympathoadrenergic responses during emergence from anaesthesia. Sedation and cardiovascular effects are observed up to 3 h into the postoperative period.     

Optimum concentration of bupivacaine for combined caudal--general anesthesia in children

Caudal epidural anesthesia has become widely accepted as a means of providing postoperative pain relief and intraoperative supplementation to general anesthesia for children. To determine the best concentration of bupivacaine for combined general-caudal anesthesia in children, 122 children aged 1-8 yr scheduled for outpatient inguinal herniorrhaphy were randomized to receive, in a double-blind fashion, caudal anesthesia with bupivacaine in one of six concentrations (0.125, 0.15, 0.175, 0.2, 0.225, or 0.25%). After incision, a programmed reduction in inspired halothane resulted, if tolerated by the subject, in an inspired halothane concentration of 0.5% 10 min after incision. End-tidal halothane concentration at hernia sac ligation for subjects receiving 0.175% bupivacaine (0.55 +/- 0.03%) was less than that for subjects receiving 0.15% bupivacaine (0.75 +/- 0.05%; P less than 0.05). Subjects receiving 0.175% bupivacaine also were discharged earlier from the postanesthesia care unit (PACU) (27 +/- 1 min) than were subjects receiving 0.15% bupivacaine (38 +/- 5 min; P = 0.05). Children receiving greater than or equal to 0.2% bupivacaine tended to complain more of leg weakness after surgery; however, the difference did not reach statistical significance (39 of 67 vs. 16 of 47; P = 0.057). The incidence of complaints of leg weakness and paresthesia was positively correlated with bupivacaine concentration (r = 0.706; P = 0.05). Subjects receiving 0.125% bupivacaine had higher pain scores on arrival to the PACU than did those receiving 0.2% bupivacaine (P = 0.05); there were no other differences in pain scores.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

Caudal neostigmine,bupivacaine, and their combination for postoperative pain management after hypospadias surgery in children

In a randomized, double-blinded study, we examined the analgesic efficacy of caudal neostigmine, bupivacaine, or a mixture of both drugs in 60 children. After the induction of general anesthesia, children were allocated randomly into three groups (n = 20) to receive a caudal injection of either 0.25% bupivacaine 1 mL/kg, with or without neostigmine 2 micro g/kg, or neostigmine 2 micro g/kg in normal saline 1 mL/kg. Intraoperatively, children receiving caudal bupivacaine or a bupivacaine/neostigmine mixture maintained hemodynamic stability, required less inhaled anesthetics, and had a shorter recovery time compared with the caudal neostigmine alone. Postoperatively, the caudal bupivacaine/neostigmine mixture resulted in superior analgesia compared with the other two groups. Recovery to first rescue analgesic times were (mean +/- SD) 22.8 +/- 2.9 h, 8.1 +/- 5.9 h, and 5.2 +/- 2.1 h in the bupivacaine/neostigmine, bupivacaine, and neostigmine groups, respectively (P < 0.001). In addition, the bupivacaine and neostigmine groups received more doses of paracetamol than the bupivacaine/neostigmine group to maintain adequate analgesia in the first 24 postoperative h. Postoperative vomiting occurred in 25%, 10%, and 30% in the caudal bupivacaine/neostigmine, bupivacaine, and neostigmine groups, respectively (P < 0.01). We conclude that caudal neostigmine 2 micro g/kg provides postoperative analgesia comparable to caudal bupivacaine in children undergoing hypospadias repair surgery. IMPLICATIONS: Caudal neostigmine 2 micro g/kg provides postoperative analgesia comparable to caudal bupivacaine in children undergoing hypospadias repair surgery. Co-administration of the two drugs is associated with extended postoperative analgesia and reduced need for supplementary analgesics.     

Levobupivacaine caudal anesthesia in children: a randomized double-blind comparison with bupivacaine

BACKGROUND: Levobupivacaine is the pure S-enantiomer of bupivacaine. Despite obvious benefits in the event of accidental intravascular injection there has been no studies demonstrating a clinically significant benefit to levobupivacaine over racemic bupivacaine for pediatric regional anesthesia. Given the similar pharmacokinetic profiles of both drugs the studies to date have been underpowered to demonstrate what is likely to be a small difference in clinical effectiveness. Our aim was to determine if there are significant differences in the clinical effectiveness of levobupivacaine compared with racemic bupivacaine for caudal anesthesia in children having lower abdominal surgery. A secondary aim was to determine if there are differences in the incidence of postoperative motor blockade between these agents. METHODS: Three hundred and ten children ranging in age from 1 month to 10.75 years in age having lower abdominal surgery were enrolled. Patients were randomized in a double blind manner to receive a caudal block with either 0.25% bupivacaine (n = 152) or 0.25% levobupivacaine (n = 155) to a total volume of 1 ml x kg(-1). Motor blockade (modified Bromage scale) and postoperative pain or distress (FLACC behavioral scale for postoperative pain) were measured at predetermined time points during the subsequent 120 min. RESULTS: There were no significant adverse effects attributable to levobupivacaine. Success rates were defined as a lack of hemodynamic response to first surgical incision and low postoperative pain scores. At a mean duration of 5 min between block completion and first incision success for 1 ml x kg(-1) of 0.25% bupivacaine was 91% and 94% for 0.25% levobupivacaine. Satisfactory postoperative analgesia was present in 98% of patients after bupivacaine caudal anesthesia and 97.5% for levobupivacaine. At 30 min following caudal anesthesia the incidence of postoperative motor block with racemic bupivacaine was 84% and decreased to 7% at 120 min. For levobupivacaine motor block at 30 min postcaudal was present in 85% and decreased to 11% at 120 min. CONCLUSIONS: Levobupivacaine is an effective agent for caudal anesthesia in children at a recommended dose of 2.5 mg x kg(-1). The rapidity of onset was suitable for establishment of surgical anesthesia and postoperative analgesia was achieved in greater than 97.5% of patients. It appears to be of equivalent potency to racemic bupivacaine in children requiring lower abdominal surgery.     

Caudal bupivacaine and s(+)-ketamine for postoperative analgesia in children

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate whether caudal s-ketamine would prolong analgesia together with caudal bupivacaine. METHODS: Thirty children, ASA I-II, 1 month-9 years, scheduled for minor inguinal or penile surgery, were randomly assigned in a prospective, double-blind fashion to receive single shot caudal blockade by either bupivacaine 0.125% 1 ml.kg(-1) (group B, n = 15) or a mixture of bupivacaine 0.125% 1 ml.kg(-1) and preservative-free s-ketamine 0.5 mg.kg(-1) (group K, n = 15). Postoperative pain was assessed by means of an observational 10-point scoring system and analgesia was administered if the pain score exceeded a value of 3. RESULTS: Within 24 h after caudal block 10 patients (67%) in group K and three patients in group B (20%) did not require additional analgesic medication (P < 0.01). There were no significant differences between the groups for incidence of haemodynamic changes. We did not observe any negative side-effects attributable to the caudal block or s-ketamine. Conclusions: Addition of preservative-free s-ketamine 0.5 mg.kg(-1) to caudal bupivacaine 0.125% 1 ml.kg(-1) provides significant prolongation of analgesia without producing negative side-effects.     

Comparison of caudal morphine and tramadol for postoperative pain control in children undergoing inguinal herniorrhaphy

OBJECTIVES: We compared the quality and duration of analgesia, the effect on perioperative sevoflurane requirement after a single, presurgical caudal block with either tramadol or morphine in children undergoing inguinal herniorrhaphy. Our study was also designed to evaluate the preemptive analgesic efficacy of morphine administered caudally in children. METHODS: Patients were randomly divided into three groups to receive 2 mg.kg-1 tramadol (group T, preemptive group) or morphine sulphate 0.03 mg.kg-1 (group M, preemptive group). The patients in control group (group C, postincisional group) received morphine sulphate 0.03 mg.kg-1 at the end of surgery, caudally. Cardiorespiratory data, sedation and pain were recorded for 24 h following recovery from anaesthesia. RESULTS: There were no differences between the three groups in baseline blood pressure or heart rate; or duration of anaesthesia, surgery. The inhaled sevoflurane concentration was significantly lower in group M and group T than in the control group. The quality and duration of postoperative pain relief did not differ between the three groups. There were no intergroup differences in postoperative nausea, vomiting, or other complications. CONCLUSION: Caudal tramadol (2 mg.kg-1) provided reliable postoperative analgesia similar to caudal morphine (0.03 mg.kg-1) in quality and duration of pain relief in our study children who were undergoing herniorrhaphy. We also concluded that presurgical caudal morphine or tramadol reduced perioperative sevoflurane requirements and either presurgical or postsurgical caudal morphine did not make any difference to postoperative analgesia.     

Prospective to a randomized double-blind controlled trial to assess efficacy of double caudal analgesia in hypospadias repair

Background/Purpose: A prospective, randomised, double-blind, controlled trial to evaluate efficacy of double-caudal versus single-caudal injection for postoperative analgesia in hypospadias repair was performed. Methods: Between October 1998 and September 2000, 160 boys underwent distal hypospadias repair. The first 80 boys were analyzed prospectively for postoperative analgesia after double-caudal bupivacaine, which involves the administration of a second bupivacaine injection into the caudal extradural space at the end of surgery. Pain was assessed using the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario Pain Scale (CHEOPS). The study groups were: group 1, unstented Thiersch-Duplay urethroplasty (50); and group 2, stented Mathieu type repair (30). Results of this cohort formed the basis for a prospective, randomised, double-blind control trial comparing double-caudal against a single injection before operation. The further 80 patients were allocated randomly: group 3, single caudal injection of 1 mL kg^{[minus ]1} of 0.25% plain bupivacaine at the start of surgery with unstented Thiersh-Duplay repair (25); group 4, similar single caudal injection but stented Mattieu type operation (15); group 5, second caudal and at end of operation (0.5 mL kg^{[minus ]1} on each occasion) with unstented Thiersh-Duplay repair (25); and group 6, similar to group 5 but with stented Mattieu type repair (15). Results: Patient demographics (age and weight) and mean duration of operative time were similar for all groups. There was no significant difference in early pain scores at 0 to 2 hours with a good correlation coefficient (r = 0.88). At 4, 6, and 8 hours there was a significant difference in pain scores between double and single caudals (P [lt ] .05). There was a significant difference in mean duration of caudal analgesia and need for oral analgesia between single caudal 3.45 versus 7.85 hours for double caudal (P [lt ] .001). Mean duration of caudal analgesia and requirement for oral analgesia after single caudal in group 3 (unstented) was 3.5 versus 3.4 hours in group 4 (stented). In double caudals this lengthened to 9.4 hours in group 5 (unstented) versus 6.3 hours in group 6 (stented; P [lt ] .05). This also was significant when operation time was excluded. Conclusions: A prospective study of double caudal analgesia showed good postoperative pain control after hypospadias surgery. This was followed by a prospective, randomised, double-blind controlled trial that has confirmed that double caudal injection of bupivacaine prolonged the duration of pain relief after hypospadias repair. The second or top-up caudal did not increase the total dose but supplemented and prolonged postoperative analgesia.     

Regional analgesia combined with avoidance of narcotics may reduce the incidence of postoperative vomiting in children

BACKGROUND: The anesthesia literature cites a high incidence of postoperative vomiting (POV) after pediatric ochidopexy and hernia repair (34-50%) and after penile procedures (37-49%). We hypothesized that regional analgesia combined with avoidance of narcotics administered to children scheduled for lower abdominal or urologic procedures may be associated with a lower incidence of POV. The aim of this prospective study was to 1) assess the incidence of POV in children in the hospital and during a 24-h post-anesthesia study period, and 2) evaluate the effect of age on POV. METHODS: After obtaining institutional and parental consent, 110 pediatric outpatients, 1-12 yr old, ASA physical status I or II, scheduled for elective outpatient urologic or lower abdominal procedures, were enrolled. Children were fasting and premedicated with midazolam, 0.5 mg/kg p.o. They received a combined light general anesthesia and a presurgical caudal block. Anesthesia was induced via a mask and consisted of halothane and nitrous oxide in oxygen. For the caudal block 1 ml/kg of 0.25% bupivacaine or 0.2% ropivacaine were used to provide intra- and postoperative pain relief. No prophylactic antiemetics were administered. RESULTS: All caudal blocks provided adequate intraoperative pain relief. The incidence of POV was low, 12% at the hospital, 13% for the 24-h study period, and was not affected by age. CONCLUSIONS: We concluded that regional analgesia combined with the avoidance of narcotics administered to children scheduled for elective urologic or lower abdominal procedures, is associated with a lower incidence of POV and that age did not affect the incidence of POV.     

Caudal block for postoperative analgesia in children

A clinical trial was performed to compare the effects of intramuscular dihydrocodeine with caudal bupivacaine on postoperative pain and recovery in 181 children who had undergone either circumcision, inguinal herniotomy or orchidopexy performed under general anaesthesia. Linear analogues were used in assess level of consciousness and apparent pain. Recovery of consciousness was slower after caudal analgesia. For 90 minutes following circumcision there was significantly less pain and caudal analgesia, but better pain relief could not be demonstrated following inguinal herniotomy and orchidopexy.     

Effect of dexmedetomidine on the characteristics of bupivacaine in a caudal block in pediatrics

Background: Dexmedetomidine (DEX) is a highly selective α₂‐adrenoceptor agonist that has been used increasingly in children. However, the effect of caudal DEX has not been evaluated before in children. This prospective randomized double‐blinded study was designed to evaluate the analgesic efficacy of caudal DEX with bupivacaine in providing pain relief over a 24‐h period. Methods: Sixty children (ASA status I) aged 1–6 years undergoing unilateral inguinal hernia repair/orchidopexy were allocated randomly to two groups (n=30 each). Group B received a caudal injection of bupivacaine 2.5 mg/ml, 1 ml/kg; Group BD received the same dose of bupivacaine mixed with DEX 1 μg/kg during sevoflurane anesthesia. Processed electroencephalogram (bispectral index score), heart rate, blood pressure, pulse oximetry and end‐tidal sevoflurane were recorded every 5 min. The characteristics of emergence, objective pain score, sedation score and quality of sleep were recorded post‐operatively. Duration of analgesia and requirement for additional analgesics were noted. Results: The end‐tidal sevoflurane concentration and the incidence of agitation were significantly lower in the BD group (P<0.05). The duration of analgesia was significantly longer (P<0.001) and the total consumption of rescue analgesic was significantly lower in Group BD compared with Group B (P<0.01). There was no statistically significant difference in hemodynamics between both groups. However, group BD had better quality of sleep and a prolonged duration of sedation (P<0.05). Conclusion: Caudal DEX seems to be a promising adjunct to provide excellent analgesia without side effects over a 24‐h period. It has the advantage of keeping the patients calm for a prolonged time. Implications statement: Caudally administered DEX (1 μg/kg), combined with bupivacaine, was associated with an extended duration of post‐operative pain relief.     

Analgesic effect of clonidine added to bupivacaine 0.125% in paediatric caudal blockade

BACKGROUND: Caudals are a common method of providing pain relief in children undergoing surgery. Clonidine, an alpha(2) agonist, exhibits significant analgesic properties. The current investigation sought to determine whether caudal clonidine added to caudal bupivacaine would decrease pain in paediatric patients undergoing surgery. METHODS: Thirty-six children undergoing elective surgery were studied. Following anaesthetic induction, a caudal was placed (1 mg.kg(-1) bupivacaine 0.125%) with an equal volume of either clonidine (2 microg.kg(-1)) or saline. Perioperative analgesic requirements in the postanaesthesia care unit (PACU) and at home following hospital discharge, and parental pain scores were evaluated. RESULTS: There were no significant demographic, haemodynamic, or pain score differences between the groups. There was no difference in analgesic duration between groups. There were significantly more children who vomited during the first 24 postoperative hours in the clonidine group than in the saline group (eight in clonidine, two in saline; P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: We do not recommend adding clonidine (2 microg.kg(-1)) to a bupivacaine (0.125%) caudal block in children undergoing surgery.     

Caudal morphine for postoperative analgesia in children: a comparison with caudal bupivacaine and intravenous morphine

We compared the efficacy, duration, and side effects of preservative-free morphine injected into the caudal space in children, with caudal bupivacaine and with intravenous morphine administration for relief of postoperative pain. Forty-six children, ages 1-16 yr, were randomly assigned to receive intravenous morphine (control group), caudal bupivacaine (0.25%, 1 ml/kg), or caudal morphine (0.5 mg/ml, 0.1 mg/kg). In half the patients given caudal morphine, the morphine was mixed with a dose of lidocaine adequate to produce sacral analgesia, to confirm correct caudal injection of the morphine. Caudal injections were performed at the end of surgery. Time until the first required postoperative intravenous morphine dose was recorded for each patient. The duration of analgesia was significantly greater with caudal morphine (median 12 hr, P less than 0.02) than with caudal bupivacaine (median 5 hr), and both were greater than with intravenous morphine in control patients (median 45 min). Urinary retention, pruritis, and nausea appeared with slightly greater frequency in the caudal morphine group, but no delayed respiratory depression occurred. Caudal morphine (0.5 mg/ml, 0.1 mg/kg) provided 8-24 hr of analgesia in children without a significantly greater incidence of side effects than caudal bupivacaine or intravenous morphine.     

Analgesic efficacy and safety of a caudal bupivacaine-fentanyl mixture in children

The analgesic efficacy and safety of a single caudal injection of a bupivacaine-fentanyl mixture was investigated in this prospective, controlled, triple-blinded study of 34 children, aged 1-11 yr and of ASA physical status I-II undergoing urological surgery. After induction of anaesthesia and before surgery, the children were randomly assigned to receive a caudal injection of 1.0 ml.kg-1 bupivacaine 0.125% with epinephrine 1:400,000 and either fentanyl 1.0 microgram.kg-1 in 1.0 ml of normal saline or 1.0 ml of normal saline. After completion of surgery, patients were assessed in the recovery room for six hours from the time of the caudal injection and for a further 18 hr on the ward. While in the recovery room arterial oxygen saturation and respiratory rate were monitored continuously and recorded hourly together with end-tidal carbon dioxide, pain and sedation scores. Other complications were also recorded. While on the ward, pain and sedation scores, respiratory rate and side effects were recorded every two hours. Postoperative analgesia was provided by intravenous morphine. Analgesic requirements were recorded for the 24-hr study period. Pain and sedation scores did not differ between groups. Respiratory depression or hypoxia did not occur. The incidences of other side effects did not differ. There were no differences in the numbers of patients requiring morphine within eight hours, the time to first morphine administration or the total morphine requirements. We conclude that a single caudal injection of a bupivacaine-fentanyl mixture with epinephrine administered prior to surgery, while safe, offers no advantage over an injection of bupivacaine 0.125% with epinephrine for paediatric urological surgery.     

A clinical comparison of equal concentration and volume of ropivacaine and bupivacaine for interscalene brachial plexus anesthesia and analgesia in shoulder surgery

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare the same volume and concentration of bupivacaine and ropivacaine for interscalene brachial plexus block anesthesia and postoperative analgesia in shoulder surgery. METHODS: Forty-four patients scheduled for elective shoulder surgery were prospectively randomized to receive in a double-blind fashion 30 mL of either 0.5% bupivacaine or ropivacaine for interscalene block. The block was prolonged after surgery by using a patient-controlled interscalene analgesia with 0.15% of either bupivacaine or ropivacaine. The mean onset times of surgical blocks were determined after interscalene block. Pain relief was regularly assessed by using a visual analog scale, side effects were noted, and the patients were asked to rate their satisfaction at the end of the study. RESULTS: Two patients with bupivacaine and 1 with ropivacaine failed to achieve surgical block and were excluded. The mean onset times of surgical blocks were 18 +/- 12 minutes with ropivacaine and 21 +/- 13 minutes with bupivacaine. The pain scores, total volume infused of local anesthetics, incremental dose requested and received, total rescue analgesic, and side effects were similar between the groups. Postoperative pain control was similarly effective and patient satisfaction was high in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that the same volume and concentration of bupivacaine and ropivacaine (30 mL of 0.5%) for interscalene brachial plexus block anesthesia produce similar surgical block. When prolonging the block with a patient-controlled interscalene analgesia infusion, 0.15% bupivacaine or ropivacaine provide adequate pain relief, similar side effects, and high patient satisfaction after shoulder surgery.     

Caudal bupivacaine-tramadol combination for postoperative analgesia in pediatric herniorrhaphy

BACKGROUND: Administration of bupivacaine caudally has been used for postoperative analgesia after urogenital, rectal and lower abdominal surgery in children. Caudal opioids may offer analgesic advantages over bupivacaine alone but have been associated with side effects such as respiratory depression. Tramadol is an analgesic assumed to lack a respiratory depressant effect and has been shown to provide effective, long-lasting analgesia after epidural administration in adults and children. The aim of this study was to determine whether the addition of tramadol to bupivacaine caudally prolongs the duration of analgesia compared with bupivacaine alone, with respect to side effects, and whether caudal tramadol alone provides satisfactory analgesia. METHODS: Sixty boys, aged 12-84 months, undergoing unilateral herniorrhaphy, were allocated randomly to three groups. Children in group B received 0.25% plain bupivacaine 1 ml kg(-1), group BT received an identical local anesthetic dose mixed with tramadol 1.5 mg kg(-1) and group T received caudal tramadol 1.5 mg kg(-1) in 0.9% sodium chloride in the same total volume (1 ml kg(-1)). Pain and demeanour assessments were made 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 12 and 24 h after recovery from anesthesia with reference to a three-point scale. RESULTS: Analgesia time (time between caudal injection and first administration of analgesic) in group BT (13.5+/-2.2 h) was significantly longer than in the other two groups (P<0.05). In group T, more patients required additional analgesia after surgery than in the other two groups (P<0.05). Pain scores in the three groups were similar up to 4 h after operation but the mean score in group T was higher than groups B and BT 4 and 6 h after operation (P<0.05). Significantly more patients who had received caudal bupivacaine alone or with tramadol had lower pain and demeanour scores during the first 24 h after operation compared with those in the tramadol group. CONCLUSION: Caudal administration of bupivacaine with the addition of tramadol resulted in superior analgesia with a longer period without demand for additional analgesics compared with caudal bupivacaine and tramadol alone without an increase of side effects.     

Timing of caudal block placement in relation to surgery does not affect duration of postoperative analgesia in paediatric ambulatory patients

The purpose of this study was to determine if the timing of caudal block placement in relation to surgery affected either the duration of postoperative pain relief or the discharge time in children undergoing brief ambulatory surgical procedures. Forty ASA physical status I or II children ages 18 mo to 11 yr were randomly assigned to one of two groups. Group I patients received a caudal block with 0.5 ml · kg^?1 of bupivacaine 0.25 per cent following the induction of anaesthesia but before the onset of surgery. Group 2 patients received a similar block at the completion of surgery but before emergence from general anaesthesia. An experienced observer, who was not aware of the timing of block placement, observed all patients from arrival to the post-anaesthetic recovery room until discharge from the ambulatory surgery unit. Pain was assessed at five-minute intervals using an Objective Pain Scale. No statistically significant differences were noted between Group I and Group 2 patients with regard to their postoperative pain/discomfort scores, the need for postoperative narcotic analgesia, or the time required for either group to meet standard discharge criteria. It is concluded that the duration of postoperative analgesia is not impaired by placing the caudal block prior to the start of a brief surgical procedure.