Tong Yiru,Zhang Haorong,Lou Man,et al.Analysis of the anesthetic effect of visual sacral canal puncture in children with sacrococcygeal hyperplasia[J].Journal of Clinical Pediatric Surgery,,():1035-1041.[doi:10.3760/cma.j.cn101785-202406044-007]
Analysis of the anesthetic effect of visual sacral canal puncture in children with sacrococcygeal hyperplasia
- Keywords:
- Caudal Block; Ultrasound; Surgical Procedures; Operative; Child
- Abstract:
- Objective To investigate the efficacy of a novel visualization technique for caudal epidural catheterization to improve the success rate and efficacy of caudal block in children with sacrococcygeal hypertrophy. Methods A retrospective analysis was conducted on 196 cases of children with sacrococcygeal hypertrophy who received caudal block performed by the same anesthesiologist at Shanghai Children’s Hospital from July 2016 to January 2024.Based on the different puncture techniques used for the caudal block,the cases were divided into three groups:traditional technique group (125 cases),ultrasound-guided group (18 cases),and intergluteal cleft positioning group (53 cases).Data collected included age,gender,weight,height,body mass index (BMI),first puncture success rate,completion rate of the caudal block effect,heart rate,and systolic blood pressure at the start of anesthesia and during skin incision. Results Compared to the traditional technique group,both the ultrasound-guided group and the intergluteal cleft positioning group achieved higher first puncture success rate (17/18 vs.78/125,42/53 vs.78/125,P<0.05) and better caudal block effects (16/18 vs.78/125,49/53 vs.78/125,P<0.05).At the start of anesthesia,the heart rates were (92.3±14.1) beats/min for the traditional technique group,(104.0±11.6) beats/min for the ultrasound-guided group,and (95.4±14.4) beats/min for the gluteal crease positioning group.Systolic blood pressures were (99.9±10.6) mmHg for the traditional technique group,(99±10.6) mmHg for the ultrasound-guided group,and (107.0±11.0) mmHg for the gluteal crease positioning group; all differences in heart rates and systolic blood pressures among the three groups were statistically significant (P<0.05).During skin incision,heart rates were (92.4±14.1) beats/min for the traditional technique group,(105.0±12.7) beats/min for the ultrasound-guided group,and (95.9±15.2) beats/min for the gluteal crease positioning group.Systolic blood pressures were (101.0±10.6) mmHg for the traditional technique group,(93.9±9.4) mmHg for the ultrasound-guided group,and (104.0±10.8) mmHg for the gluteal crease positioning group; again,differences were statistically significant (P<0.05).Multivariate logistic regression analysis found that the new visualization techniques (ultrasound-guided caudal block:OR=7.901,95%CI:1.923-54.913; gluteal crease positioning caudal block:OR=11.539,95%CI:3.726-45.950) were independent correlates of effective caudal block (P<0.05).Height (OR=1.278,95%CI:1.051-1.574),weight (OR=0.705,95%CI:0.535-0.908),BMI (OR=2.273,95%CI:1.182-4.656),and caudal block methods (ultrasound-guided caudal block technique:OR=10.046,95%CI:1.908-185.923; gluteal crease positioning caudal block:OR=3.650,95%CI:1.516-9.890) were factors related to the first puncture success (P<0.05). Conclusions Compared to traditional techniques,the novel visualization techniques significantly improved the first puncture success rate and effectiveness of caudal block in children with sacrococcygeal hypertrophy.The gluteal crease positioning technique provides a reliable alternative to ultrasound guidance.
References:
[1] Yan TT,Yang XL,Wang S,et al.Application of continuous sacral block guided by ultrasound after comprehensive sacral canal scanning in children undergoing laparoscopic surgery:a prospective,randomized,double-blind study[J].J Pain Res,2023,16:83-92.DOI:10.2147/JPR.S391501.
[2] Quan SB,Lu YX,Huang YJ.Analgesic effect of ropivacaine combined with dexmedetomidine in the postoperative period in children undergoing ultrasound-guided single-shot sacral epidural block:a systematic review and meta-analysis[J].Front Pediatr,2023,11:1099699.DOI:10.3389/fped.2023.1099699.
[3] Fortier MA,Chou J,Maurer EL,et al.Acute to chronic postoperative pain in children:preliminary findings[J].J Pediatr Surg,2011,46(9):1700-1705.DOI:10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2011.03.074.
[4] Karaca O,Pinar HU,Gokmen Z,et al.Ultrasound-guided versus conventional caudal block in children:a prospective randomized study[J].Eur J Pediatr Surg,2019,29(6):533-538.DOI:10.1055/s-0038-1676980.
[5] Sekiguchi M,Yabuki S,Satoh K,et al.An anatomic study of the sacral hiatus:a basis for successful caudal epidural block[J].Clin J Pain,2004,20(1):51-54.DOI:10.1097/00002508-200401000-00010.
[6] Aggarwal A,Aggarwal A,Harjeet,et al.Morphometry of sacral hiatus and its clinical relevance in caudal epidural block[J].Surg Radiol Anat,2009,31(10):793-800.DOI:10.1007/s00276-009-0529-4.
[7] Aggarwal A,Kaur H,Batra YK,et al.Anatomic consideration of caudal epidural space:a cadaver study[J].Clin Anat,2009,22(6):730-737.DOI:10.1002/ca.20832.
[8] Crighton IM,Barry BP,Hobbs GJ.A study of the anatomy of the caudal space using magnetic resonance imaging[J].Br J Anaesth,1997,78(4):391-395.DOI:10.1093/bja/78.4.391.
[9] Senoglu N,Senoglu M,Oksuz H,et al.Landmarks of the sacral hiatus for caudal epidural block:an anatomical study[J].Br J Anaesth,2005,95(5):692-695.DOI:10.1093/bja/aei236.
[10] Chen CP,Wong AM,Hsu CC,et al.Ultrasound as a screening tool for proceeding with caudal epidural injections[J].Arch Phys Med Rehabil,2010,91(3):358-363.DOI:10.1016/j.apmr.2009.11.019.
[11] Nikooseresht M,Hashemi M,Mohajerani SA,et al.Ultrasound as a screening tool for performing caudal epidural injections[J].Iran J Radiol,2014,11(2):e13262.DOI:10.5812/iranjradiol.13262.
[12] Kim YH,Park HJ,Cho S,et al.Assessment of factors affecting the difficulty of caudal epidural injections in adults using ultrasound[J].Pain Res Manag,2014,19(5):275-279.DOI:10.1155/2014/679128.
[13] Park GY,Kwon DR,Cho HK.Anatomic differences in the sacral hiatus during caudal epidural injection using ultrasound guidance[J].J Ultrasound Med,2015,34(12):2143-2148.DOI:10.7863/ultra.14.12032.
[14] Riascos R,Vu L,Cuellar H,et al.CT evaluation of caudal versus lumbar access to the intradural space[J].Neurol Res,2011,33(10):1094-1098.DOI:10.1179/1743132811Y.0000000008.
[15] Bagheri H,Govsa F.Anatomy of the sacral hiatus and its clinical relevance in caudal epidural block[J].Surg Radiol Anat,2017,39(9):943-951.DOI:10.1007/s00276-017-1823-1.
Memo
收稿日期:2024-6-24。
基金项目:上海市儿童医院院级课题(2020YLYZ05)
通讯作者:张号绒,Email:tongyiru@hotmail.com