Comparison of caudal epidural clonidine with fentanyl as an adjuvant to ropivacaine 0.25% for postoperative analgesia in children undergoing various infraumbilical surgeries: A prospective randomized study

S. Saini, Veena Patodi, S. Sethi, Neena Jain, P. Mathur, Beena Thada
{"title":"Comparison of caudal epidural clonidine with fentanyl as an adjuvant to ropivacaine 0.25% for postoperative analgesia in children undergoing various infraumbilical surgeries: A prospective randomized study","authors":"S. Saini, Veena Patodi, S. Sethi, Neena Jain, P. Mathur, Beena Thada","doi":"10.4103/1687-7934.198252","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background Caudal epidural block is commonly used as a safe, reliable, easy-to-administer technique for abdominal and lower limb surgeries in pediatric patients and allows rapid recovery from anesthesia with effective postoperative analgesia. The aim of our study was to compare the efficacy of clonidine versus fentanyl when used as an additive to ropivacaine during single-shot caudal epidural analgesia in pediatric patients for postoperative pain relief. Patients and methods This randomized prospective double-blind study was conducted on 60 children of American Society of Anesthesiologists grades I and II aged 1–7 years scheduled for various infraumbilical surgical procedures who were randomly allocated into two groups to receive either ropivacaine (0.25%, 1 ml/kg) and clonidine (2 μg/kg) (group RC) or ropivacaine (0.25%, 1 ml/kg) and fentanyl (1 μg/kg) (group RF). Caudal epidural block was performed after induction of general anesthesia. Postoperatively, patients were observed for duration of analgesia, sedation score, recovery time, hemodynamics, and side effects or complications. Results Both groups were similar with respect to patient’s demographic profile, baseline hemodynamic parameters, and duration of surgery. The analgesic properties and hemodynamics were also comparable in both groups (P>0.05). The mean recovery time and sedation score were significantly lower in group RC as compared with group RF (P<0.05). Side effects such as nausea, vomiting, and respiratory depression were seen only in group RF. Conclusion From our study we concluded that both clonidine (2 μg/kg) and fentanyl (1 μg/kg) can be used as an adjuvant to single-shot caudal epidural anesthesia using 0.25% ropivacaine for effective postoperative analgesia in children. Because of its more favorable side-effect profile, with less respiratory depression, nausea, vomiting, and more patient comfort, clonidine is a better choice for use as an adjuvant to caudal epidural anesthesia in children.","PeriodicalId":7492,"journal":{"name":"Ain-Shams Journal of Anaesthesiology","volume":"46 1","pages":"493 - 500"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ain-Shams Journal of Anaesthesiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/1687-7934.198252","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

Background Caudal epidural block is commonly used as a safe, reliable, easy-to-administer technique for abdominal and lower limb surgeries in pediatric patients and allows rapid recovery from anesthesia with effective postoperative analgesia. The aim of our study was to compare the efficacy of clonidine versus fentanyl when used as an additive to ropivacaine during single-shot caudal epidural analgesia in pediatric patients for postoperative pain relief. Patients and methods This randomized prospective double-blind study was conducted on 60 children of American Society of Anesthesiologists grades I and II aged 1–7 years scheduled for various infraumbilical surgical procedures who were randomly allocated into two groups to receive either ropivacaine (0.25%, 1 ml/kg) and clonidine (2 μg/kg) (group RC) or ropivacaine (0.25%, 1 ml/kg) and fentanyl (1 μg/kg) (group RF). Caudal epidural block was performed after induction of general anesthesia. Postoperatively, patients were observed for duration of analgesia, sedation score, recovery time, hemodynamics, and side effects or complications. Results Both groups were similar with respect to patient’s demographic profile, baseline hemodynamic parameters, and duration of surgery. The analgesic properties and hemodynamics were also comparable in both groups (P>0.05). The mean recovery time and sedation score were significantly lower in group RC as compared with group RF (P<0.05). Side effects such as nausea, vomiting, and respiratory depression were seen only in group RF. Conclusion From our study we concluded that both clonidine (2 μg/kg) and fentanyl (1 μg/kg) can be used as an adjuvant to single-shot caudal epidural anesthesia using 0.25% ropivacaine for effective postoperative analgesia in children. Because of its more favorable side-effect profile, with less respiratory depression, nausea, vomiting, and more patient comfort, clonidine is a better choice for use as an adjuvant to caudal epidural anesthesia in children.
尾侧硬膜外氯定与芬太尼辅助0.25%罗哌卡因用于各种脐下手术儿童术后镇痛的比较:一项前瞻性随机研究
背景尾侧硬膜外阻滞通常作为一种安全、可靠、易于实施的技术用于儿科患者的腹部和下肢手术,并且可以通过有效的术后镇痛快速从麻醉中恢复。本研究的目的是比较氯定与芬太尼作为罗哌卡因的添加剂在儿科患者单次尾侧硬膜外镇痛中用于术后疼痛缓解的疗效。患者和方法本随机前瞻性双盲研究对60例1 - 7岁美国麻醉医师学会I级和II级患儿进行了各种脐下手术,随机分为两组,分别给予罗哌卡因(0.25%,1 ml/kg)和可定(2 μg/kg) (RC组)或罗哌卡因(0.25%,1 ml/kg)和芬太尼(1 μg/kg) (RF组)。全麻诱导后行尾侧硬膜外阻滞。术后观察患者镇痛时间、镇静评分、恢复时间、血流动力学、副作用或并发症。结果两组患者的人口学特征、基线血流动力学参数和手术时间相似。两组镇痛性能及血流动力学比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。RC组平均恢复时间和镇静评分显著低于RF组(P<0.05)。恶心、呕吐、呼吸抑制等副作用仅在RF组出现。结论在0.25%罗哌卡因单次尾侧硬膜外麻醉的基础上,氯定(2 μg/kg)和芬太尼(1 μg/kg)均可作为辅助用药,达到患儿术后有效镇痛的目的。由于其副作用更小,呼吸抑制、恶心、呕吐更少,患者更舒适,可乐定是儿童尾侧硬膜外麻醉的较好辅助选择。
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