We have located links that may give you full text access.
The analgesic efficacy of ultrasound-guided erector spinae plane block versus ultrasound-guided caudal epidural block for abdominal surgery in pediatric patients - A patient and assessor-blind, randomized controlled study.
BACKGROUND: Literature on the efficacy and safety of erector spinae plane block (ESPB) in pediatric patients is limited. Hence, we aimed to compare ESPB versus caudal epidural block (CEB) in children undergoing abdominal surgery.
METHODS: In this patient and assessor-blind study, fifty-two ASA I-II patients, between 1 to 9 years of age, were randomized into groups of 26 each. ESPB group received unilateral or bilateral ultrasound (USG)-guided ESPB with 0.5 ml/kg of 0.25% bupivacaine per side. CEB group received USG-guided CEB with 1 ml/kg of 0.25% bupivacaine. The primary objective was to estimate the proportion of patients requiring postoperative rescue analgesia. The secondary objectives were to assess postoperative Face, Legs, Activity, Cry and Consolability (FLACC) scale scores, duration of analgesia, and consumption of rescue analgesic drugs.
RESULTS: More patients in the ESPB group (88.4%), compared to the CEB group (42.3%), required rescue analgesics ( P value <0.001). FLACC scores in the ESPB group, though satisfactory, were inferior, to the CEB group. The duration of postoperative analgesia was shorter in the ESPB group by 9.54 h (95% CI: 4.51 to 14.57 h, P value <0.001). The median (IQR) consumption of rescue paracetamol was significantly higher in the ESPB group (20 mg/kg (10,20) compared to the CEB group (0.0 mg/kg (0.0,10) P value <0.001)). No adverse effects were reported.
CONCLUSION: In children undergoing abdominal surgery, both ESPB and CEB were safe and efficacious. CEB provided a longer duration and better quality of analgesia. ESPB may be considered when CEB is contraindicated or difficult.
METHODS: In this patient and assessor-blind study, fifty-two ASA I-II patients, between 1 to 9 years of age, were randomized into groups of 26 each. ESPB group received unilateral or bilateral ultrasound (USG)-guided ESPB with 0.5 ml/kg of 0.25% bupivacaine per side. CEB group received USG-guided CEB with 1 ml/kg of 0.25% bupivacaine. The primary objective was to estimate the proportion of patients requiring postoperative rescue analgesia. The secondary objectives were to assess postoperative Face, Legs, Activity, Cry and Consolability (FLACC) scale scores, duration of analgesia, and consumption of rescue analgesic drugs.
RESULTS: More patients in the ESPB group (88.4%), compared to the CEB group (42.3%), required rescue analgesics ( P value <0.001). FLACC scores in the ESPB group, though satisfactory, were inferior, to the CEB group. The duration of postoperative analgesia was shorter in the ESPB group by 9.54 h (95% CI: 4.51 to 14.57 h, P value <0.001). The median (IQR) consumption of rescue paracetamol was significantly higher in the ESPB group (20 mg/kg (10,20) compared to the CEB group (0.0 mg/kg (0.0,10) P value <0.001)). No adverse effects were reported.
CONCLUSION: In children undergoing abdominal surgery, both ESPB and CEB were safe and efficacious. CEB provided a longer duration and better quality of analgesia. ESPB may be considered when CEB is contraindicated or difficult.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
A Guide to the Use of Vasopressors and Inotropes for Patients in Shock.Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 2024 April 14
British Society for Rheumatology guideline on management of adult and juvenile onset Sjögren disease.Rheumatology 2024 April 17
Albumin: a comprehensive review and practical guideline for clinical use.European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 2024 April 13
Renin-Angiotensin-Aldosterone System: From History to Practice of a Secular Topic.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 5
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app