Analgesic effects of caudal versus intravenous dexamethasone on bupivacaine based caudal block for paediatric infraumbilical surgeries

Abiye F. George, Alfred T. Aggo
{"title":"Analgesic effects of caudal versus intravenous dexamethasone on bupivacaine based caudal block for paediatric infraumbilical surgeries","authors":"Abiye F. George, Alfred T. Aggo","doi":"10.18203/issn.2454-2156.intjscirep20240045","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Singleshot caudal block provides short lived postoperative analgesia necessitating continued exploration for adjuvants. Aim was to compare the analgesic efficacy between intravenous and caudal dexamethasone on bupivacaine based caudal block for paediatric infraumbilical surgeries.\nMethods: Following ethical clearance and parental consent, 69 children aged 1-6 years, of American society of anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status classification I and II were randomized into groups A, B and C, of 23 each. All subjects underwent laryngeal mask airway (LMA) general anaesthesia induced with propofol and maintained with isoflurane in 100% oxygen, and had caudal block with 1 ml/kg bupivacaine 0.25%. Additionally, groups B and C received caudal 0.1mg/kg and intravenous preinduction 0.25 mg/kg dexamethasone, respectively. Pain was assessed using FLACC scale. The time to first analgesic request (TTFAR) was defined as the interval from caudal injection until pain score was ≥4; at this point, analgesic was given.\nResults: All 69 children were completely studied. The mean TTFAR (in minutes) was longest in Group B (485.40±24.50) followed by C (459.60±36.40), and shortest in group A (253.63±71.55), p=0.001, 0.024 and 0.968 for A versus B, A versus C and B versus C respectively, with greatest 24 hours pethidine consumption in Group A relative to groups B and C, p=0.001 and 0.025.\nConclusions: Caudal 0.1 mg/kg or intravenous 0.25 mg/kg dexamethasone combined with bupivacaine significantly prolonged postoperative analgesic duration, with comparable analgesic profile between the caudal and intravenous routes, and without adverse effects.","PeriodicalId":14297,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Scientific Reports","volume":"44 11","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Scientific Reports","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18203/issn.2454-2156.intjscirep20240045","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Singleshot caudal block provides short lived postoperative analgesia necessitating continued exploration for adjuvants. Aim was to compare the analgesic efficacy between intravenous and caudal dexamethasone on bupivacaine based caudal block for paediatric infraumbilical surgeries. Methods: Following ethical clearance and parental consent, 69 children aged 1-6 years, of American society of anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status classification I and II were randomized into groups A, B and C, of 23 each. All subjects underwent laryngeal mask airway (LMA) general anaesthesia induced with propofol and maintained with isoflurane in 100% oxygen, and had caudal block with 1 ml/kg bupivacaine 0.25%. Additionally, groups B and C received caudal 0.1mg/kg and intravenous preinduction 0.25 mg/kg dexamethasone, respectively. Pain was assessed using FLACC scale. The time to first analgesic request (TTFAR) was defined as the interval from caudal injection until pain score was ≥4; at this point, analgesic was given. Results: All 69 children were completely studied. The mean TTFAR (in minutes) was longest in Group B (485.40±24.50) followed by C (459.60±36.40), and shortest in group A (253.63±71.55), p=0.001, 0.024 and 0.968 for A versus B, A versus C and B versus C respectively, with greatest 24 hours pethidine consumption in Group A relative to groups B and C, p=0.001 and 0.025. Conclusions: Caudal 0.1 mg/kg or intravenous 0.25 mg/kg dexamethasone combined with bupivacaine significantly prolonged postoperative analgesic duration, with comparable analgesic profile between the caudal and intravenous routes, and without adverse effects.
在小儿脐下手术中使用基于布比卡因的尾部阻滞术与静脉注射地塞米松的镇痛效果比较
背景:单枪尾部阻滞的术后镇痛时间较短,因此有必要继续探索辅助药物。目的:比较静脉注射和尾部注射地塞米松对基于布比卡因的小儿脐下手术尾部阻滞的镇痛效果:在获得伦理许可和家长同意后,69 名 1-6 岁的美国麻醉医师协会(ASA)身体状况分类 I 和 II 级的儿童被随机分为 A、B 和 C 组,每组 23 人。所有受试者都接受了喉罩气道(LMA)全身麻醉,使用异丙酚诱导,在 100%氧气中使用异氟醚维持麻醉,并使用 1 毫升/千克 0.25% 布比卡因进行尾部阻滞。此外,B 组和 C 组分别接受了 0.1 毫克/千克的尾部阻滞和 0.25 毫克/千克的地塞米松静脉注射。疼痛采用FLACC量表进行评估。首次镇痛请求时间(TTFAR)定义为从尾部注射到疼痛评分≥4分的时间间隔;此时,给予镇痛剂:对所有 69 名儿童进行了全面研究。B组的平均TTFAR(以分钟为单位)最长(485.40±24.50),其次是C组(459.60±36.40),A组最短(253.63±71.55),A组对B组、A组对C组、B组对C组的P=0.001、0.024和0.968,A组相对于B组和C组的24小时哌替啶消耗量最大,P=0.001和0.025:腹腔注射 0.1 毫克/千克或静脉注射 0.25 毫克/千克地塞米松联合布比卡因可显著延长术后镇痛时间,腹腔注射和静脉注射的镇痛效果相当,且无不良反应。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信