Effects of ultrasound-guided caudal versus perianal blocks on intraoperative anal sphincter tone and postoperative analgesia during sphincter-sparing procedures: A randomized comparative trial

A.M. Adel AbdelMoneim, M. Bassem Helmy, M. Adolf Helmy, O. Mohamed Asaad, A. Hassan Saleh, M.H. El-Sherbiny
{"title":"Effects of ultrasound-guided caudal versus perianal blocks on intraoperative anal sphincter tone and postoperative analgesia during sphincter-sparing procedures: A randomized comparative trial","authors":"A.M. Adel AbdelMoneim,&nbsp;M. Bassem Helmy,&nbsp;M. Adolf Helmy,&nbsp;O. Mohamed Asaad,&nbsp;A. Hassan Saleh,&nbsp;M.H. El-Sherbiny","doi":"10.1016/j.redare.2026.502091","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Data comparing the effects of caudal epidural anaesthesia and perianal block during anal sphincter sparing procedures under general anaesthesia are limited. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of ultrasound-guided caudal block versus perianal block on anal sphincter muscle tone and in reducing postoperative pain among patients undergoing anal sphincter-sparing procedures.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>This randomized double-blinded study enrolled 46 adult patients, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I or II, who underwent anal sphincter sparing procedures under general anaesthesia. Patients were randomly assigned to one of two groups (23 patients each). Group A received an ultrasound-guided caudal block, while Group B received a perianal block. The primary outcome was duration of postoperative analgesia. Secondary outcomes included total postoperative morphine consumption, postoperative pain intensity, time to postoperative ambulation, intraoperative external anal sphincter muscle tone by Digital rectal scoring system (DRESS), patient satisfaction, and incidence of complications.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Patients in group A had a statistically significant longer time to first request for analgesia and lower morphine consumption than those in group B (2.50 ± 0.27 vs. 1.57 ± 0.53 h, and 3.30 ± 2.18 mg vs. 5.87 ± 2.05 mg, <em>P</em> &lt; .001). Although these differences are modest in magnitude, they may contribute to improved recovery when combined with multimodal analgesia strategies. Moreover, caudal block resulted in shorter time to ambulation (2.17 ± 0.38 vs 3.48 ± 0.53 h), and low numeric pain scores (1.96 ± 0.56 vs. 3.48 ± 0.66, <em>P</em> &lt; .001). The DRESS and Likert scores were significantly higher in patients in group A than in group B (2.83 ± 0.38 vs. 2.22 ± 0.42, and 3.78 ± 0.42 vs. 2.48 ± 0.66, <em>P</em> &lt; .001).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>In anal sphincter-sparing operations, ultrasound-guided caudal epidural blocks combined with general anaesthesia may improve pain management, reduce opioid requirements, and thereby reduce the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting, while maintaining anal sphincter tone compared to local perianal block.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":94196,"journal":{"name":"Revista espanola de anestesiologia y reanimacion","volume":"73 4","pages":"Article 502091"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista espanola de anestesiologia y reanimacion","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2341192926000788","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/3/18 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Data comparing the effects of caudal epidural anaesthesia and perianal block during anal sphincter sparing procedures under general anaesthesia are limited. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of ultrasound-guided caudal block versus perianal block on anal sphincter muscle tone and in reducing postoperative pain among patients undergoing anal sphincter-sparing procedures.

Methods

This randomized double-blinded study enrolled 46 adult patients, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I or II, who underwent anal sphincter sparing procedures under general anaesthesia. Patients were randomly assigned to one of two groups (23 patients each). Group A received an ultrasound-guided caudal block, while Group B received a perianal block. The primary outcome was duration of postoperative analgesia. Secondary outcomes included total postoperative morphine consumption, postoperative pain intensity, time to postoperative ambulation, intraoperative external anal sphincter muscle tone by Digital rectal scoring system (DRESS), patient satisfaction, and incidence of complications.

Results

Patients in group A had a statistically significant longer time to first request for analgesia and lower morphine consumption than those in group B (2.50 ± 0.27 vs. 1.57 ± 0.53 h, and 3.30 ± 2.18 mg vs. 5.87 ± 2.05 mg, P < .001). Although these differences are modest in magnitude, they may contribute to improved recovery when combined with multimodal analgesia strategies. Moreover, caudal block resulted in shorter time to ambulation (2.17 ± 0.38 vs 3.48 ± 0.53 h), and low numeric pain scores (1.96 ± 0.56 vs. 3.48 ± 0.66, P < .001). The DRESS and Likert scores were significantly higher in patients in group A than in group B (2.83 ± 0.38 vs. 2.22 ± 0.42, and 3.78 ± 0.42 vs. 2.48 ± 0.66, P < .001).

Conclusion

In anal sphincter-sparing operations, ultrasound-guided caudal epidural blocks combined with general anaesthesia may improve pain management, reduce opioid requirements, and thereby reduce the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting, while maintaining anal sphincter tone compared to local perianal block.
超声引导下尾侧阻滞与肛周阻滞对术中肛门括约肌张力和保留括约肌手术后镇痛的影响:一项随机比较试验。
背景:在全麻下保留肛门括约肌的手术中,比较尾侧硬膜外麻醉和肛周阻滞效果的数据是有限的。我们的目的是比较超声引导下尾侧阻滞与肛周阻滞对肛门括约肌张力的疗效和安全性,以及在减少肛门括约肌保留手术患者术后疼痛方面的效果。方法:这项随机双盲研究招募了46名成年患者,他们在全身麻醉下接受了肛门括约肌保留手术,美国麻醉师学会物理状态为I或II。患者被随机分为两组(每组23例)。A组采用超声引导下的尾侧阻滞,B组采用肛周阻滞。主要观察指标为术后镇痛持续时间。次要结局包括术后吗啡总用量、术后疼痛强度、术后下床时间、术中肛管外括约肌张力(DRESS)、患者满意度和并发症发生率。结果:A组患者首次请求镇痛时间较B组长(2.50±0.27 h vs 1.57±0.53 h),吗啡用量较B组低(3.30±2.18 mg vs 5.87±2.05 mg), p有统计学意义。在保留肛门括约肌的手术中,超声引导下的尾侧硬膜外阻滞联合全身麻醉可以改善疼痛管理,减少阿片类药物的需求,从而减少术后恶心和呕吐的发生率,同时与局部肛周阻滞相比,保持肛门括约肌张力。
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书