Ultrasound-Guided versus Conventional Caudal Block in Children: A Prospective Randomized StudyFunding None.
22 August 2018
25 November 2018
02 January 2019 (eFirst)
Background Injection to the accurate area without any complications is the main factor for the efficiencies of caudal block. The aim of this study was to compare success and the complications of conventional and ultrasound method for caudal block in children.
Materials and Methods Two-hundred sixty-six American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) category 1 children aged between 6 months and 6 years undergoing hypospadias, circumcision, or both surgeries were randomly allocated two groups (Group C or Group H, n = 133). About 0.25% bupivacaine with 1/200000 adrenaline (total volume: 0.5 mL/kg) was injected after the needle was inserted into the sacral canal in Group C, or right after the needle pierced the sacrococcygeal ligament under longitudinal ultrasound view in Group H. Success rate of block, block performing time, number of needle puncture, success at first puncture, complication rate, age and weight of the patients encountering these complications were recorded.
Results The success rate of block was similar between two groups (94.7% in Group C vs 96.2% in Group U, p > 0.05). Success at first puncture was higher in Group U than in Group C (90.2 vs 66.2%, respectively; p < 0.001). Number of needle puncture, blood aspiration, subcutaneous bulging, and bone contact was higher in Group C but none in Group U (p < 0.001) and these complications were occurred in children weighing < 16 kg and less younger than 6 years old.
Conclusion We observed that the complications were not encountered, number of needle puncture was lesser, and the success rate of first puncture was higher under ultrasound with longitudinal view.
- 1 Dostbil A, Gursac Celik M, Aksoy M. , et al. The effects of different doses of caudal morphine with levobupivacaine on postoperative vomiting and quality of analgesia after circumcision. Anaesth Intensive Care 2014; 42 (02) 234-238
- 2 Odeş R, Erhan ÖL, Demirci M, Göksu H. Effects of ketamine added to ropivacaine in pediatric caudal block. Agri 2010; 22 (02) 53-60
- 3 Koo BN, Hong JY, Kim JE, Kil HK. The effect of flexion on the level of termination of the dural sac in paediatric patients. Anaesthesia 2009; 64 (10) 1072-1076
- 4 Shin SK, Hong JY, Kim WO, Koo BN, Kim JE, Kil HK. Ultrasound evaluation of the sacral area and comparison of sacral interspinous and hiatal approach for caudal block in children. Anesthesiology 2009; 111 (05) 1135-1140
- 5 Jöhr M, Berger TM. Caudal blocks. Paediatr Anaesth 2012; 22 (01) 44-50
- 6 Dalens B, Hasnaoui A. Caudal anesthesia in pediatric surgery: success rate and adverse effects in 750 consecutive patients. Anesth Analg 1989; 68 (02) 83-89
- 7 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 (01) 51-54
- 8 Lewis MP, Thomas P, Wilson LF, Mulholland RC. The ‘whoosh’ test. A clinical test to confirm correct needle placement in caudal epidural injections. Anaesthesia 1992; 47 (01) 57-58
- 9 Wang LZ, Hu XX, Zhang YF, Chang XY. A randomized comparison of caudal block by sacral hiatus injection under ultrasound guidance with traditional sacral canal injection in children. Paediatr Anaesth 2013; 23 (05) 395-400
- 10 Chen CP, Tang SF, Hsu TC. , et al. Ultrasound guidance in caudal epidural needle placement. Anesthesiology 2004; 101 (01) 181-184
- 11 Akkaya T, Ozkan D, Kertmen H, Sekerci Z. Caudal epidural steroid injections in postlaminectomy patients: comparison of ultrasonography and fluoroscopy. Turk Neurosurg 2017; 27 (03) 420-425
- 12 Orme RM, Berg SJ. The ‘swoosh’ test--an evaluation of a modified ‘whoosh’ test in children. Br J Anaesth 2003; 90 (01) 62-65
- 13 Raghunathan K, Schwartz D, Connelly NR. Determining the accuracy of caudal needle placement in children: a comparison of the swoosh test and ultrasonography. Paediatr Anaesth 2008; 18 (07) 606-612
- 14 Kim MS, Han KH, Kim EM, Jeong SH, Lee JR. The myth of the equiangular triangle for identification of sacral hiatus in children disproved by ultrasonography. Reg Anesth Pain Med 2013; 38 (03) 243-247
- 15 Silvani P, Camporesi A, Agostino MR, Salvo I. Caudal anesthesia in pediatrics: an update. Minerva Anestesiol 2006; 72 (06) 453-459
- 16 Senoglu N, Senoglu M, Oksuz H. , et al. Landmarks of the sacral hiatus for caudal epidural block: an anatomical study. Br J Anaesth 2005; 95 (05) 692-695
- 17 Veyckemans F, Van Obbergh LJ, Gouverneur JM. Lessons from 1100 pediatric caudal blocks in a teaching hospital. Reg Anesth 1992; 17 (03) 119-125
- 18 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. Anaesthesia 2006; 61 (10) 946-949
- 19 Galante D. Ultrasound needle guidance in neonatal and infant caudal anesthesia. Paediatr Anaesth 2008; 18 (12) 1233-1234
- 20 Fukazawa K, Matsuki Y, Ueno H, Hosokawa T, Hirose M. Risk factors related to accidental intravascular injection during caudal anesthesia. J Anesth 2014; 28 (06) 940-943
- 21 Pınar HU, Karaca Ö, Doğan R, Akıllıoğlu İ. Can ondansetron be used in the treatment of subdural block?. J Clin Anesth 2016; 33: 162-163
- 22 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 (02) 137-141
- 23 Doo AR, Kim JW, Lee JH, Han YJ, Son JS. A comparison of two techniques for ultrasound-guided caudal injection: the influence of the depth of the inserted needle on caudal block. Korean J Pain 2015; 28 (02) 122-128
- 24 Charbonneau J, Fréchette Y, Sansoucy Y, Echave P. The ultrasound-guided retroclavicular block: a prospective feasibility study. Reg Anesth Pain Med 2015; 40 (05) 605-609
- 25 Ahiskalioglu A, Yayik AM, Ahiskalioglu EO. , et al. Ultrasound-guided versus conventional injection for caudal block in children: a prospective randomized clinical study. J Clin Anesth 2018; 44: 91-96