The evaluation of upper leg traction in lateral position for pediatric caudal block

Mahin Seyedhejazi, Reza Taheri, Morteza Ghojazadeh, Mahin Seyedhejazi, Reza Taheri, Morteza Ghojazadeh

Abstract

Purpose: A well-functioning caudal block is an excellent adjunct to general anesthesia, but misplaced injection results in poor analgesia as well as possibility of serious morbidity. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of leg traction on success rate of caudal block in lateral position in children.

Methods: Two hundred children, age 2 months to 6 years, ASA I and II, who underwent lower abdominal surgeries were randomized in prospective controlled clinical trial study in two groups. After induction of General anesthesia, the caudal block was performed in the lateral position with upper leg traction (L-T-) or with the standard position (S-P) (leg flexed 90°). Hemodynamicchanges, movement of lower extremity in response to surgical stimulus were evaluated.

Results: There was no significant difference in caudal block's success rate between two groups at first attempt (P=0.25). In group (S-P) the procedure was successful in 60% of cases at first attempt, 25% at second,10% at third attempt and 5% failure of caudal block, whereas in the first group it was 75%, 20%, 1% and 4% of cases respectively. There were no significant differences in heart rate and blood pressure changes between two groups (P>0.05).

Conclusion: The success rate of pediatric caudal block in upper leg traction did not differ from that of the standard position.

Keywords: Caudal block; lateral position; leg traction; pediatric.

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest: None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Picture of leg traction technique
Figure 2
Figure 2
Trial profile
Figure 3
Figure 3
Variation in systolic (SBP) and diastolic (DBP) blood pressures in the both study groups by the time
Figure 4
Figure 4
Variation in heart rate (HR) in both study groups by the time

References

    1. Seyedhejazi M, Zarrintan S. Evaluation of caudal anesthesia performed in conscious infants for lower abdominal surgeries. Neurosciences. 2008;13:46–8.
    1. Bosenberg A. Pediatric regional anesthesia update. Paediatr Anaesth. 2004;14:398–402.
    1. Tsui BC, Berde CB. Caudal analgesia and anesthesia techniques in children. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2005;18:283–8.
    1. Tsui BC, Tarkkila P, Gupta S, Kearney R. Confirmation of caudal needle placement using nerve stimulation. Anesthesiol. 1999;91:374–8.
    1. Sekiguchi M, Yabuki S, Satoh K, Kikuchi S. An anatomic study of the sacral hiatus: a basis for successful caudal epidural block. Clin j pain. 2004;20:51–4.
    1. Aggarwal A, Kaur H, Batra YK, Aggarwal AK, Rajeev S, Sahni D. Anatomic consideration of caudal epidural space. Clin Anat. 2009;22:730–7.
    1. Senoglu N, Senoglu M, Oksuz H, Gumusalan Y, Yuksel KZ, Zencirci B, et al. Landmarks of the sacral hiatus for caudal epidural block. Br j anaesth. 2005;95:692–5.
    1. Aggarwal A, Aggarwal A, Harjeet, Sahni D. Morphometry of sacral hiatus and its clinical relevance in caudal epidural block. Surg radiol anat. 2009;13:793–800.
    1. Grundy EM, Rao LN, Winnie AP. Epidural anesthesia and the lateral position. Anesth analg. 1978;57:95–7.
    1. Apiliogullari S, Duman A, Gok F, Ogun CO, Akillioglu I. The effects of 45 degree head up tilt on the lumbar puncture success rate in children undergoing spinal anesthesia. Pediatr anaesth. 2008;18:1178–82.
    1. Lee CJ, Jeon Y, Lim YJ, Bahk JH, Kim YC, Lee SC, et al. The influence of neck flexion and extention on the distribution of contrast medium in the high thoracic epidural space. Anesth Analg. 2007;104:1583–6.
    1. Raghunathan K, Schwartz D, Connelly NR. Determining the accuracy of caudal needle placement in children: a comparison of swoosh test and ultrasonography. Pediatr Anesth. 2008;18:606–12.
    1. Takahashi K, Miyazaki T, Takino T, Matsui T, Tomita K. Epidural pressure measurements, relationship between epidural pressure and posture in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine. 1995;20:650–3.
    1. Dalens B, Hasnaoui A. Caudal anesthesia in pediatric surgery: Success rate and adverse effects in 750 consecutive patients. Anesth Analg. 1989;68:83–9.
    1. Park JH, Koo BN, Kim JY, Cho JE, Kim WO, Kil HK. Determination of the optimal angle for needle insertion during caudal block in children using ultrasound imaging 2006;61:946-9. Anaesthesia. 2006;61:946–9.
    1. Adewale L, Dearlove O, Wilson B, Hindle K, Robinson DN. The caudal canal in children: A study using magnetic resonance imaging. Paediatr Anaesth. 2000;10:137–41.
    1. Sekiguchi M, Yabuki S, Satoh K, Kikuchi S. An anatomic study of the sacral Hiatus: A basis for successful caudal epidural block. Clin J Pain. 2004;20:51–4.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors en medewerkers

Medische omstandigheden

Geneesmiddelinterventies

3
Abonneren