Comparison of Subcutaneous Ring Block of the Penis with Caudal Epidural Block for Post Circumcision Analgesia in Children

Raihan Uddin, Maooz Khan
{"title":"Comparison of Subcutaneous Ring Block of the Penis with Caudal Epidural Block for Post Circumcision Analgesia in Children","authors":"Raihan Uddin, Maooz Khan","doi":"10.3329/jbsa.v34i1.67572","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Pain is an inevitable consequence of circumcision and a number of methods have nowbeen described to ameliorate this. Local anesthetic techniques have been shown to be more effective thansystemic opioids.\nObjective: This study compared the subcutaneous ring block of the penis with caudal epidural block forpost circumcision analgesia in children.\nMaterials and method: This comparative study was done during the period of January 2020 to December2020 in BIRDEM General Hospital, Dhaka, Bangladesh. A randomized, prospective, blind trial wasconducted comparing caudal epidural blockade (caudal block) with subcutaneous ring block of the penis(penile ring block) in forty healthy boys between three to five years of age undergoing elective circumcision.\nResults: Subjects receiving caudal block had a longer duration of analgesia (p <0.05), and longer to firstmicturition (p <0.05) but there was no difference in time taken to awaken from anesthesia or spontaneouslywalk unaided. There were no local or systemic complications related to either block and a very lowincidence of vomiting.\nConclusion: It is concluded that both techniques are effective. Caudal block is more reliable and providesa longer duration of analgesia but penile ring block is inherently safer and has a lower incidence ofadverse effects.\nJBSA 2021; 34(1): 50-53","PeriodicalId":17242,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Bangladesh Society of Anaesthesiologists","volume":"27 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Bangladesh Society of Anaesthesiologists","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3329/jbsa.v34i1.67572","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: Pain is an inevitable consequence of circumcision and a number of methods have nowbeen described to ameliorate this. Local anesthetic techniques have been shown to be more effective thansystemic opioids. Objective: This study compared the subcutaneous ring block of the penis with caudal epidural block forpost circumcision analgesia in children. Materials and method: This comparative study was done during the period of January 2020 to December2020 in BIRDEM General Hospital, Dhaka, Bangladesh. A randomized, prospective, blind trial wasconducted comparing caudal epidural blockade (caudal block) with subcutaneous ring block of the penis(penile ring block) in forty healthy boys between three to five years of age undergoing elective circumcision. Results: Subjects receiving caudal block had a longer duration of analgesia (p <0.05), and longer to firstmicturition (p <0.05) but there was no difference in time taken to awaken from anesthesia or spontaneouslywalk unaided. There were no local or systemic complications related to either block and a very lowincidence of vomiting. Conclusion: It is concluded that both techniques are effective. Caudal block is more reliable and providesa longer duration of analgesia but penile ring block is inherently safer and has a lower incidence ofadverse effects. JBSA 2021; 34(1): 50-53
阴茎皮下环阻滞与尾侧硬膜外阻滞用于儿童包皮环切术后镇痛的比较
背景:疼痛是包皮环切术不可避免的后果,现在已经有许多方法来改善这种情况。局部麻醉技术已被证明比全身阿片类药物更有效。目的:比较阴茎皮下环阻滞与尾侧硬膜外阻滞在儿童包皮环切术后镇痛中的作用。材料和方法:本比较研究于2020年1月至2020年12月在孟加拉国达卡BIRDEM总医院完成。一项随机、前瞻性、盲试验对40名接受选择性包皮环切术的3 - 5岁健康男孩进行了硬膜外阻滞(尾侧阻滞)和皮下环阻滞(阴茎环阻滞)的比较。结果:接受尾侧阻滞的受试者镇痛持续时间较长(p <0.05),首次排尿时间较长(p <0.05),但从麻醉中醒来和自主行走所需时间无差异。两种阻滞均无局部或全身并发症,呕吐发生率极低。结论:两种方法均有效。尾侧阻滞更可靠,镇痛持续时间更长,但阴茎环阻滞本身更安全,不良反应发生率更低。JBSA 2021;34 (1): 50-53
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