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,2024,(11):1035-1041.[doi:10.3760/cma.j.cn101785-202406044-007]
可视化骶管穿刺技术用于骶尾肥厚患儿的麻醉效果分析
- Title:
- Analysis of the anesthetic effect of visual sacral canal puncture in children with sacrococcygeal hyperplasia
- Keywords:
- Caudal Block; Ultrasound; Surgical Procedures; Operative; Child
- 摘要:
- 目的 探讨可视化骶管超声定位、臀沟纹穿刺定位技术改善骶尾肥厚患儿骶管穿刺成功率及骶管阻滞的效果。方法 回顾性分析2016年7月至2024年1月上海市儿童医院由同一麻醉医师实施的196例接受骶管阻滞的骶尾肥厚患儿临床资料,根据骶管阻滞采用穿刺技术的不同分为传统技术组(125例)、超声定位组(18例)和臀沟纹定位组(53例),收集三组患儿年龄、性别、体重、身高、身体质量指数、首次穿刺成功率、骶管阻滞效果完善率、麻醉开始时及手术划皮时的心率与收缩压。结果 与传统技术组相比,超声定位组、臀沟纹定位组均实现了更高的首次穿刺成功率(17/18比78/125,42/53比78/125,P<0.05)和更好的骶管阻滞效果(16/18比78/125,49/53比78/125,P<0.05)。麻醉开始时,传统技术组心率为(92.3±14.1)次/分,超声定位组心率为(104.0±11.6)次/分,臀沟纹定位组心率为(95.4±14.4)次/分;传统技术组收缩压为(99.9±10.6) mmHg,超声定位组收缩压为(99±10.6) mmHg,臀沟纹定位组收缩压为(107.0±11.0) mmHg;上述指标差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)。手术划皮时,传统技术组心率为(92.4±14.1)次/分,超声定位组心率为(105.0±12.7)次/分,臀沟纹定位组心率为(95.9±15.2)次/分;传统技术组收缩压为(101.0±10.6) mmHg,超声定位组收缩压为(93.9±9.4) mmHg,臀沟纹定位组收缩压为(104.0±10.8) mmHg;上述指标差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)。多因素Logistic回归分析结果显示,超声定位骶管阻滞技术(OR=7.901,95%CI:1.923~54.913)、臀沟纹定位骶管阻滞技术(OR=11.539,95%CI:3.726~45.950)是提高骶管阻滞有效率的相关因素(P<0.05);患儿身高(OR=1.278,95%CI:1.051~1.574)、体重(OR=0.705,95%CI:0.535~0.908)、身体质量指数(OR=2.273,95%CI:1.182~4.656)、骶管阻滞方法(超声定位骶管阻滞技术:OR=10.046,95%CI:1.908~185.923;臀沟纹定位骶管阻滞技术:OR=3.650,95%CI:1.516~9.890)是提高骶管首次穿刺成功率的相关因素(P<0.05)。结论 与传统技术相比,可视化骶管超声定位、臀沟纹穿刺定位技术显著提高了骶尾肥厚患儿骶管阻滞的首次穿刺成功率,并优化了骶管阻滞效果。臀沟纹定位技术为超声定位提供了一种可靠的替代方法。
- 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.
参考文献/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.
相似文献/References:
[1]何静波 段星星 李皓 张号绒 彭巧玉. 超声诊断先天性食管闭锁并气管食管瘘的初步探讨[J].临床小儿外科杂志,2012,11(02):109.
[2]张广超 钱蔷英 阮双岁. 69例小儿Wilms瘤的超声检查分析[J].临床小儿外科杂志,2012,11(02):134.
[3]段星星,何静波,陈文娟,等.高频超声在新生儿先天性上消化道梗阻中的诊断价值探讨[J].临床小儿外科杂志,2017,16(05):464.
[4]刘金桥,陈文娟,尹强,等.肝动脉阻力指数对儿童肝移植术后胆道吻合口并发症的预测价值[J].临床小儿外科杂志,2020,19(11):1038.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.1671-6353.2020.11.015]
Liu Jinqiao,Chen Wenjuan,Yin Qiang,et al.Predictive value of hepatic artery resistance index for biliary anastomotic complications after liver transplantation in children[J].Journal of Clinical Pediatric Surgery,2020,19(11):1038.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.1671-6353.2020.11.015]
[5]孟喜军,于立松,李俊,等.超声引导下骨骺内闭合截骨治疗儿童先天性拇指尺偏畸形[J].临床小儿外科杂志,2024,(02):158.[doi:10.3760/cma.j.cn101785-202307006-011]
Meng Xijun,Yu Lisong,Li Jun,et al.Treatment of congenital thumb ulnar deviation in children with closed osteotomy in epiphyseal by ultrasonography[J].Journal of Clinical Pediatric Surgery,2024,(11):158.[doi:10.3760/cma.j.cn101785-202307006-011]
[6]李雄涛,孙杰,王思,等.肌骨超声在儿童急性踝关节扭伤中的应用[J].临床小儿外科杂志,2024,(11):1015.[doi:10.3760/cma.j.cn101785-202409026-003]
Li Xiongtao,Sun Jie,Wang Si,et al.Application of musculoskeletal ultrasound in acute lateral ankle sprain in children[J].Journal of Clinical Pediatric Surgery,2024,(11):1015.[doi:10.3760/cma.j.cn101785-202409026-003]
备注/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