The Open Pain Journal




ISSN: 1876-3863 ― Volume 12, 2019
RESEARCH ARTICLE

Comparison of a Combination of Caudal Levobupivacaine with Fentanyl and Levobupivacaine Alone for Alleviating Postoperative Pain During Infraumbilical Procedures in Children Under 3 Years



Muralidar Vakkapatti1, Thrivikram Shenoy1, Sonal Bhat1, *
1 Department Of Anaesthesiology, Kasturba Medical College, Mangaluru Manipal University, Karnataka, India

Abstract

Background:

To compare the post-operative analgesic efficacy of caudal blockade using levobupivacaine alone and a combination of fentanyl with levobupivacaine in children under 3 years undergoing infraumbilical surgeries. Combination of levobupivacaine with fentanyl and levobupivacaine alone in children for caudal block was never studied before. Hence there was a need for the study.

Methods:

After approval from Institutional Ethical Committee, Kasturba Medical College, Mangaluru, 60 patients of age group 0-3 years, either sex of ASA physical status 1 and 2 undergoing infraumbilical surgeries were chosen after written parental consent and were randomised into 2 groups of 30 each L and LF using computer generated block randomisation to receive caudal blocks. Post operatively assessed for pain using CHIPPS scale at 2, 4, 6, 12 and 24 hours and compared in both groups.

Results:

Out of 60 patients, 30 in each group [L and LF], CHIPPS scores at 2, 4, 6, 12 and 24 hours post-operatively exhibited a p-value of 0.545, 0.492, 0.626, 0.166, and 0.329 respectively [not significant]. Mean duration of analgesia was 14.60 in Group L & 17.67 in Group LF with a t test p value of 0.119 [not significant].

Conclusion:

Combination of fentanyl with levobupivacaine when compared to levobupivacaine alone for caudal block was equianalgesic in children less than 3 years undergoing infra umbilical procedures.

Keywords: Caudal block, Fentanyl, Levobupivacaine, Post-operative pain, Infraumbilical, CHIPPS.


Article Information


Identifiers and Pagination:

Year: 2019
Volume: 12
First Page: 19
Last Page: 25
Publisher Id: TOPAINJ-12-19
DOI: 10.2174/1876386301912010019

Article History:

Received Date: 28/06/2019
Revision Received Date: 16/09/2019
Acceptance Date: 30/09/2019
Electronic publication date: 15/11/2019
Collection year: 2019

Article Metrics:

CrossRef Citations:
0

Total Statistics:

Full-Text HTML Views: 204
Abstract HTML Views: 158
PDF Downloads: 74
ePub Downloads: 66
Total Views/Downloads: 502

Unique Statistics:

Full-Text HTML Views: 138
Abstract HTML Views: 99
PDF Downloads: 57
ePub Downloads: 51
Total Views/Downloads: 345
Geographical View

© 2019 Vakkapatti et al.

open-access license: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public License (CC-BY 4.0), a copy of which is available at: (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode). This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.


* Address correspondence to this author at Department of Anaesthesiology, Kasturba Medical College, Mangaluru, Manipal University, Karnataka, India; Tel: 9980014995, E-mail: sonalbhat27@gmail.com





1. INTRODUCTION

Pediatric pain management during surgery and in postoperative period has made tremendous progress over the years in spite of inadequate research, fear of opioid-induced respiratory depression and possible addiction. Advances in the understanding of pediatric neurobiology with the availability of novel analgesics, a multimodal approach of using systemic opioids, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and regional techniques with or without adjuvants were practiced alone or in combinations. Caudal block is one of the main modes of postoperative analgesia in children for infra umbilical surgeries [1Kao SC, Lin CS. Caudal epidural block: An updated review of anatomy and techniques. BioMed Res Int 2017; 20179217145Doi.org/10.1155
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2017/9217145] [PMID: 28337460]
]. Local anaesthetics which are commonly used in the caudal block are bupivacaine, levobupivacaine, and ropivacaine in different concentrations with additives like fentanyl, morphine, butorphanol, tramadol, clonidine, dexmedetomidine and dexamethasone which are added to improve their efficacy [2Locatelli B, Ingelmo P, Sonzogni V, et al. Randomized, double-blind, phase III, controlled trial comparing levobupivacaine 0.25%, ropivacaine 0.25% and bupivacaine 0.25% by the caudal route in children. Br J Anaesth 2005; 94(3): 366-71.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bja/aei059] [PMID: 15608043]
, 3Solanki NM, Engineer SR, Jansari DB, Patel RJ. Comparison of caudal tramadol versus caudal fentanyl with bupivacaine for prolongation of postoperative analgesia in pediatric patients. Saudi J Anaesth 2016; 10(2): 154-60.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/1658-354X.168807] [PMID: 27051365]
]. Epinephrine 1:200000 concentrations mixed with local anaesthetics marginally prolonged the effect of hydrophilic lignocaine but failed to do so with lipophilic bupivacaine due to its fat absorption and slow release [4Warner MA, Kunkel SE, Offord KO, Atchison SR, Dawson B. The effects of age, epinephrine, and operative site on duration of caudal analgesia in pediatric patients. Anesth Analg 1987; 66(10): 995-8.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1213/00000539-198710000-00014] [PMID: 3631599]
]. Levobupivacaine is the S [–] enantiomer of racemic bupivacaine and the evidence suggests that it retains similar properties but less cardio toxic which is often fatal as observed with racemic bupivacaine [5Gristwood RW, Greaves JL. Levobupivacaine: A new safer long acting local anaesthetic agent. Expert Opin Investig Drugs 1999; 8(6): 861-76.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1517/13543784.8.6.861] [PMID: 15992136]
-7Taylor R, Eyres R, Chalkiadis GA, Austin S. Efficacy and safety of caudal injection of levobupivacaine, 0.25%, in children under 2 years of age undergoing inguinal hernia repair, circumcision or orchidopexy. Paediatr Anaesth 2003; 13(2): 114-21.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1460-9592.2003.01036.x] [PMID: 12562483]
]. Considering the useful properties of the above drug, a study was conducted aiming at a comparison of a combination of caudal 0.25% levobupivacaine with fentanyl 1µg/kg and levobupivacaine alone for alleviating postoperative pain during infra umbilical procedures in children under 3 years. Fentanyl is a synthetic opioid agonist, readily crosses the lumbar dura matter, penetrates rapidly the lipid moiety of underlying cord tissue and helps in the prevention of rostral migration of fentanyl avoiding central nervous system dependent depression of respiratory and cardiovascular system [3Solanki NM, Engineer SR, Jansari DB, Patel RJ. Comparison of caudal tramadol versus caudal fentanyl with bupivacaine for prolongation of postoperative analgesia in pediatric patients. Saudi J Anaesth 2016; 10(2): 154-60.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/1658-354X.168807] [PMID: 27051365]
]. The most difficult task of pain management in children is the accuracy of assessment and obtaining a proper objective compelled us to adopt a simple Children and Infant Postoperative Pain Scale (CHIPPS) to assess pain in immediate post-operative period. Hence, we took up this study to compare analgesic efficacy of the two drugs and more so challenging the paediatric population.

2. MATERIALS AND METHODS

A double-blinded, prospective, randomized, clinical trial was conducted in a state-owned pediatric tertiary care teaching hospital, from October 2016 to June 2018 after obtaining approval from Institutional Ethics Committee dated on 18th January 2018. Sixty ASA 1 and 2 children aged less than 3 years weighing less than 15 Kg posted for infra umbilical surgeries were chosen. The study procedure was explained to the parents, who took written informed consent. Children of ASA status 3 and 4, with a history of allergy to any of the drugs used in the study, hemodynamically unstable patient, acute emergencies, surgery duration more than 90 min, and who refused to give consent were excluded.

Premedication was done with midazolam 0.02mg/kg in the pre-op holding area. On receiving the patients in the operating room, standard ASA monitors were connected. Patients of both the groups were induced with titrated doses of propofol followed by atracurium [0.5mg/kg] to facilitate intubation with appropriate sized endotracheal tubes, and were maintained on N2O and O2 50% each with 2% sevoflurane. All 60 patients were randomized into group L and group LF of 30 each via computer generated block randomization. Patients belonging to Group L received 0.25% levobupivacaine 2mg/kg and Group LF received a combination of fentanyl 1µg/kg and 0.25% levobupivacaine2 mg/kg via the caudal route. After inducing these patients, they were put in the left lateral position and under aseptic conditions, a caudal block was performed using a 22 G needle with 0.25% levobupivacaine diluted in normal saline in the L group and the other group LF received the same with fentanyl 1 µg/kg. Immediately after the caudal block, the patients were returned to the supine position for performing the surgical procedure. Skin incision was allowed strictly after 15 min of block procedure and hemodynamic variables were monitored in all patients after surgical incision followed by every 10 min till the end of the surgery. No intravenous supplementation of opioids or per-rectal analgesic suppository drugs was given to any patient perioperatively. Any patient responding to the incision with an increase in blood pressure [>10 mmHg] or heart rate [>10 beats/min], was considered as the failure of the caudal block. These patients were excluded from the study and rescue analgesia was given. Intravenous tramadol 1mg/kg or 20mg/kg paracetamol suppository was used. Those surgeries which went beyond 90 min were excluded. Postoperative pain assessment was carried out by anaesthesiologists who were unaware of the present study using Children’s and Infant’s Postoperative Pain Scale [CHIPPS] which includes 5 characteristics [8McLeod GA, Burke D. Levobupivacaine. Anaesthesia 2001; 56(4): 331-41.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2044.2001.01964.x] [PMID: 11284819]
]. The final score was calculated by collecting every 5 individual scores [ranging from the minimum score of 0 to the maximum 10]. Postoperative analgesia was supplemented to those children whose scores were more than 4 with paracetamol suppository 20mg/kg or intravenous tramadol 1mg/kg. Following clinical parameters were recorded:

  1. Intraoperative heart rate and blood pressure monitoring done every 10 minutes including pre and post induction.
  2. Post-operatively pain scale was monitored at 2,4,6,12 and 24 hours by using CHIPPS scale.
  3. Postoperatively monitored for blood pressure, heart rate at 2, 4,6,12 and 24 hours.
  4. Side effects.

3. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Data measurements were done using

n = 2[Zα +Zβ] 2x σ2 /d2

Where: Zα = 1.96 at 95% confidence interval

Zβ = 1.28 at 90% power

σ = SD

d = mean difference

With 95% confidence interval & 90% power with respect to σ = 0.3 & d = 0.11 the sample size was designated 30 in each group [n=30×2=60] d = 0.11. Data analysis was done using fisher’s exact p test; chi square test, student paired t test. A statistical package SPSS version 17.0 was used and a p value <0.05 was considered significant.

4. RESULTS

As per Table 1, 16.7% of the patients belonged to the age group less than 1year in group L and 10% of patients belonged to the age group less than 1 year in group LF. 50% belonged to the age group between 1 to 2 years in both the groups L and LF. Ten patients above 2yrs belonged to L group and 12 belonged to group LF 33% and 36.7%, respectively. The age parameters were not significant considering both the groups (p value>0.05) and the mean weight of the 30 patients belonging to group L was 12.02 kg with a standard deviation of 2.712. In the group LF, the mean weight was 12.48 with a standard deviation of 2.269 with the p value remaining not significant (0.495).

As per Fig. (1), 5 patients in group L were female (16.7%) and 6 in group LF were females whereas 25 patients in group L (33.3%) and 24 in group LF (30%) were males with no significance compared to both the groups (p value > 0.05).

The overall demographic profile compared between the two groups L and LF was not statistically significant with a p value > 0.05.

Table 1
Age and weight comparison of two groups.


The heart rate, mean arterial blood pressure in the pre induction, post induction period and thereafter every 10 minutes up to 90 minutes in both groups were statistically insignificant. Average p value > 0.05.

CHIPPS scale in the first two hours remained at 1 and at 2 in the subsequent four hours in the L group. In the subsequent 6, 12 and 24hours, the average CHIPPS score remained at 5, 7 and 8 respectively in the L group. 4 patients in group L exhibited a score of >4 in the first 6hours, 16 patients scored >4 at the end of 12 and 24 hours respectively in the same group. None of the patients scored <4 beyond 24hours in L group. The patients depicting scores above 4 received rescue analgesia with tramadol 1mg/kg body weight or 20 mg/kg paracetamol suppository. As per Table 2 and Fig. (2), the difference in CHIPPS score at 2, 4,6, 12 and 24 hours between Group L and Group LF was statistically not significant. As per Table 3, the mean duration of analgesia in group L was 14.6 hours with a standard deviation of 7.793 and 17.67 in group LF with a standard deviation of 7.222 with no significance compared between both the groups (p value 0.119).

Fig (1)
Depicting the bar diagram of sex wise distribution among the two groups. Which is statistically not significant. where L = levobupivacaine, LF = levobupivacaine with fentanyl, f = female, m= male.


Fig. (2)
Bar diagram depicting the mean of CHIPPS scale at 2, 4, 6, 12, 24 hours.


Table 2
Comparison of CHIPPS scale between two groups.


Table 3
Comparing the duration of analgesia in both groups.


Table 4
Children and infants postoperative pain scale [CHIPPS] [8McLeod GA, Burke D. Levobupivacaine. Anaesthesia 2001; 56(4): 331-41.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2044.2001.01964.x] [PMID: 11284819]
].




5. DISCUSSION

Pain management in the pediatric age group is quite challenging and difficult. Among regional techniques, caudal block and to a lesser extent lumbar epidural are the most commonly used. Regional anaesthesia is a preferred and approved technique wherever feasible in children supplementing good analgesia with minimal physiologic alterations and reducing the usage of potent inhalational anaesthetic agents and opioids helping in faster recovery. Complications with caudal blocks in children are very rare and should be considered for any child undergoing surgery requiring immediate post-operative analgesia for a significant time [9Pietropaoli JA Jr, Keller MS, Smail DF, Abajian JC, Kreutz JM, Vane DW. Regional anesthesia in pediatric surgery: Complications and postoperative comfort level in 174 children. J Pediatr Surg 1993; 28(4): 560-4.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0022-3468(93)90616-S] [PMID: 8483070]
, 10Yaster M, Tobin JR, Fisher QA, Maxwell LG. Local anesthetics in the management of acute pain in children. J Pediatr 1994; 124(2): 165-76.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3476(94)70300-0] [PMID: 8301419]
]. Several neurological and cardiovascular adverse reactions with fatalities were reported after inadvertent intravascular injection or during intravenous regional anaesthesia were attributed to the R [+] isomer of bupivacaine [11Lerman J, Nolan J, Eyres R, et al. Efficacy, safety, and pharmacokinetics of levobupivacaine with and without fentanyl after continuous epidural infusion in children: A multicenter trial. Anesthesiology 2003; 99(5): 1166-74.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00000542-200311000-00025] [PMID: 14576555]
]. The levorotatory isomers when added were revealed to have a harmless pharmacological profile as their local anaesthetic effects were claimed mainly through the reversible blockage of sodium channels of nerve conduction [12Ladd LA, Mather LE. Central Effects Index-a semiquantitative method for the assessment of CNS toxicity of local anaesthetic agents in sheep. J Pharmacol Toxicol Methods 2000; 44(3): 467-76.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1056-8719(01)00109-5] [PMID: 11395324]
, 13Bajwa SJ, Kaur J. Clinical profile of levobupivacaine in regional anesthesia: A systematic review. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol 2013; 29(4): 530-9.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0970-9185.119172] [PMID: 24249993]
]. It is mainly combined with general anaesthesia in children for perioperative and post-operative analgesia, labor analgesia and as well as management of acute and chronic pain [12Ladd LA, Mather LE. Central Effects Index-a semiquantitative method for the assessment of CNS toxicity of local anaesthetic agents in sheep. J Pharmacol Toxicol Methods 2000; 44(3): 467-76.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1056-8719(01)00109-5] [PMID: 11395324]
]. The rarely seen adverse effects associated with levobupivacaine are hypotension, nausea, vomiting, headache, site pain, allergic reaction to drug and dizziness [12Ladd LA, Mather LE. Central Effects Index-a semiquantitative method for the assessment of CNS toxicity of local anaesthetic agents in sheep. J Pharmacol Toxicol Methods 2000; 44(3): 467-76.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1056-8719(01)00109-5] [PMID: 11395324]
, 13Bajwa SJ, Kaur J. Clinical profile of levobupivacaine in regional anesthesia: A systematic review. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol 2013; 29(4): 530-9.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0970-9185.119172] [PMID: 24249993]
]. Ivani et al. examined three separate concentrations of caudal levobupivacaine [0.125%, 0.20%, and 0.25%] in a study in children between1 to 7 years of age undergoing infra umbilical surgery studied a dose-response liaison equally with an average interval of postoperative analgesia and the number of patients who disclosed evidence of early postoperative motor block [14Ivani G, De Negri P, Lonnqvist PA, et al. A comparison of three different concentrations of levobupivacaine for caudal block in children. Anesth Analg 2003; 97(2): 368-71.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1213/01.ANE.0000068881.01031.09] [PMID: 12873919]
]. He established that patients who received 0.125% levobupivacaine were free of postoperative residual motor block, whereas the number of patients with residual motor block amplified with 0.20% and 0.25% levobupivacaine. Although levobupivacaine 0.125% seemed to have clinical benefits in this patient group, but also carried the disadvantage of a limited duration of postoperativeanalgesia. B. Locatelli et al. [15Locatelli B, Ingelmo P, Sonzogni V, et al. Randomized, double-blind, phase III, controlled trial comparing levobupivacaine 0.25%, ropivacaine 0.25% and bupivacaine 0.25% by the caudal route in children. Br J Anaesth 2005; 94(3): 366-71.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bja/aei059] [PMID: 15608043]
] conducted a study comparing the analgesic efficacy of an equal concentration of 0.25% of levobupivacaine, ropivacaine and bupivacaine through caudal route for sub umbilical surgeries. They found bupivacaine produced a higher incidence of residual motor block and longer analgesic effect than ropivacaine and levobupivacaine. Most of the infra umbilical surgeries in children below 3 years are the herniotomies, orchidopexies, genitourinary and lower limb orthopedic surgeries lasting below 90 minutes which are usually managed by single shot caudal anesthesia [16Lejus C, Roussière G, Testa S, Ganansia MF, Meignier M, Souron R. Postoperative extradural analgesia in children: Comparison of morphine with fentanyl. Br J Anaesth 1994; 72(2): 156-9.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bja/72.2.156] [PMID: 8110565]
]. Considering these problems, Constant et al. [17Constant I, Gall O, Gouyet L, Chauvin M, Murat I. Addition of clonidine or fentanyl to local anaesthetics prolongs the duration of surgical analgesia after single shot caudal block in children. Br J Anaesth 1998; 80(3): 294-8.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bja/80.3.294] [PMID: 9623426]
] in 1998, proposed that the addition of clonidine or fentanyl to local anaesthetics prolonged the duration of surgical analgesia after single shot caudal block in children in first four hours post operatively with vomiting being the sole complication. Desai et al. [18Desai DJ, Swadia VN, Gupta KK. Comparative study of two different doses of fentanyl with 0.25% bupivacaine through caudal route for paediatric anaesthesia and postoperative analgesia. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol 2008; 24(1): 31-4.] in 2008 compared two doses [0.5µg/kg and 1 µg/kg] of fentanyl with bupivacaine through caudal anesthesia and analgesia. They concluded that both the doses of fentanyl provided satisfactory surgical anaesthesia without any hemodynamic disturbances; however, the duration of analgesia with 1μg/ kg of fentanyl was longer. Lerman et al. [11Lerman J, Nolan J, Eyres R, et al. Efficacy, safety, and pharmacokinetics of levobupivacaine with and without fentanyl after continuous epidural infusion in children: A multicenter trial. Anesthesiology 2003; 99(5): 1166-74.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00000542-200311000-00025] [PMID: 14576555]
] in 2003 in their multicenter trial on efficiency, security, and pharmacokinetics of levobupivacaine with or without fentanyl after continuous epidural infusion, observed 0.0625% levobupivacaine deprived of fentanyl was an effective perioperative epidural solution in children when infused at a rate of 0.3 mg/kg/h. Doctor et al. [19Doctor TP, Dalwadi DB, Abraham L, Shah N, Chadha IA, Shah BJ. Comparison of ropivacaine and bupivacaine with fentanyl for caudal epidural in pediatric surgery. Anesth Essays Res 2013; 7(2): 212-5.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0259-1162.118965] [PMID: 25885835]
] analysed the addition of fentanyl [1µg/ml] to 0.25% bupivacaine and 0.2% ropivacaine for the caudal block during infra umbilical surgeries in children had no difference in the duration of analgesia but less motor blockade was observed in patients with ropivacaine.

A similar study conducted by Atilla et al. [20Erol A, Tavlan A, Tuncer S, Topal A, Muslim Y, Ruhiye R. Caudal anesthesia for minor subumblical pediatric surgery: A comparison of levobupivacaine alone and levobupivacaine plus sufentanil. J Clin Anesth 2008; 20(6): 442-6.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinane.2008.04.010] [PMID: 18929285]
] in 2008, where they compared caudal levobupivacaine with and without sufentanil for postoperative pain management in children concluded that there was no significant difference between the groups.

In the current study, there were no statistically significant changes in hemodynamics in terms of pulse rate and blood pressure at all intervals. The mean duration of action in group L who received levobupivacaine alone was 14.6h whereas it was 17.6h in group LF. The duration of action compared with both the groups was not statistically significant in spite of adding fentanyl due to its lipophilic property and the dose of 1μg/kg was inadequate. Moreover, our surgeries lasted not more than 90 min without warranting the need for epidural catheters for a combined continuous infusion of both the opioids and local anaesthetics. The CHIPPS score remained below 4 in both the groups in the first 6hrs and thereafter remained above 4 at 12 to 24 hours who required rescue analgesia but statistically not significant between the 2 groups. The pain scores remained below 4 in a few patients at 24 hours in both the groups but statistically insignificant.

Another significant finding in this study was we fixed our dose of levobupivacaine at 2 mg/kg in both the groups L and LF and 1µg/kg of fentanyl in group LF diluted to achieve a block up to T10. The levels might have been difficult to assess in anaesthetized children as we believed in the responses of heart rate and blood pressures to incision which would have been better supported with fluoroscopic confirmation of levels using radiopaque dye for dilution.

Although the concentration of levobupivacaine and fentanyl altered with dilution with normal saline, we believed in the concept “High volume low concentration regimen produces more prolonged analgesia and less motor block than Low volume high concentration solution”. This concept was strongly supported by Ivani et al. [14Ivani G, De Negri P, Lonnqvist PA, et al. A comparison of three different concentrations of levobupivacaine for caudal block in children. Anesth Analg 2003; 97(2): 368-71.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1213/01.ANE.0000068881.01031.09] [PMID: 12873919]
]. Assessment of residual motor blockade was not performed in the current study with levobupivacaine but Ivani et al. [21Ivani G, De Negri P, Lonnqvist PA, et al. Caudal anesthesia for minor pediatric surgery: A prospective randomized comparison of ropivacaine 0.2% vs levobupivacaine 0.2%. Paediatr Anaesth 2005; 15(6): 491-4.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-9592.2004.01536.x] [PMID: 15910350]
] in the same study opined that levobupivacaine is known to produce early resolution than bupivacaine or ropivacaine due to its differential blockade property.

Wong et al. [22Hong JY, Han SW, Kim WO, Cho JS, Kil HK. A comparison of high volume/low concentration and low volume/high concentration ropivacaine in caudal analgesia for pediatric orchiopexy. Anesth Analg 2009; 109(4): 1073-8.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1213/ane.0b013e3181b20c52] [PMID: 19762734]
] in 2009 also supported the usage of lower concentration and higher volume of local anaesthetic ropivacaine using 2 different concentration with a fixed dose of 2.25mg/kg. They noticed a better median spread level using radio opaque dye the overall postoperative pain and recovery scores significantly did not alter with low volume high concentration group. A study done by Attri et al. [23Attri J, Kaur G, Kashyap K. Comparison of levobupivacaine and levobupivacaine with fentanyl in infraumbilical surgeries under spinal anaesthesia. Anaes Essays Res 2015; (2): 178-89.] concluded levobupivacaine with fentanyl produced rapid onset and duration of sensory and motor block and postoperative analgesia in spinal anaesthesia in adult patients undergoing infra umbilical surgeries.In our study the route was caudal with general anaesthesia, paediatric population and we had not aimed at motor blockade. Our study wanted to assess postoperative analgesia comparatively with the two drugs in children which finally proved both have equianalgesic effect and caudal route is the most preferred route for analgesia in children.

Although ample studies are not available in literature the main pitfalls in this project could have been improved by increasing the sample size and dose of fentanyl for better results. It is still uncertain whether the volume or concentration of local anaesthetic effects its spread and superiority of caudal analgesia when the aggregate drug dose is fixed. Low concentration and large volume of the local anaesthetic agents used may result in differential block in children because of the A-delta and C fibers, and the shorter distances between the nodes of Ranvier [18Desai DJ, Swadia VN, Gupta KK. Comparative study of two different doses of fentanyl with 0.25% bupivacaine through caudal route for paediatric anaesthesia and postoperative analgesia. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol 2008; 24(1): 31-4.].

Another limitation of this study was our post-operative follow-up ceased at 24 hours and we are not sure that simple administration of opioids as intermittent boluses or infusion would have given similar or better results.

CONCLUSION

In the current study, the addition of fentanyl as an adjuvant to a single shot caudal anaesthesia did not offer any benefits over plain levobupivacaine in terms of duration of pain relief. It can be still considered as a useful technique without any side effects in minor infra umbilical surgeries like herniotomies and orchidopexies where there is no need for continuous analgesia through epidural catheters and subsequent infusion.

ETHICS APPROVAL AND CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE

Ethics approval was obatined by Institutional Ethics Committee, India.

HUMAN AND ANIMAL RIGHTS

No Animals were used in this research. All human research procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the committee responsible for human experimentation (institutional and national), and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2013.

CONSENT FOR PUBLICATION

The study procedure was explained to the parents, who took written informed consent.

AVAILABILITY OF DATA AND MATERIALS

Not applicable.

FUNDING

None.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The authors declare no conflict of interest, financial or otherwise.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Declared none.

REFERENCES

[1] Kao SC, Lin CS. Caudal epidural block: An updated review of anatomy and techniques. BioMed Res Int 2017; 20179217145Doi.org/10.1155
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2017/9217145] [PMID: 28337460]
[2] Locatelli B, Ingelmo P, Sonzogni V, et al. Randomized, double-blind, phase III, controlled trial comparing levobupivacaine 0.25%, ropivacaine 0.25% and bupivacaine 0.25% by the caudal route in children. Br J Anaesth 2005; 94(3): 366-71.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bja/aei059] [PMID: 15608043]
[3] Solanki NM, Engineer SR, Jansari DB, Patel RJ. Comparison of caudal tramadol versus caudal fentanyl with bupivacaine for prolongation of postoperative analgesia in pediatric patients. Saudi J Anaesth 2016; 10(2): 154-60.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/1658-354X.168807] [PMID: 27051365]
[4] Warner MA, Kunkel SE, Offord KO, Atchison SR, Dawson B. The effects of age, epinephrine, and operative site on duration of caudal analgesia in pediatric patients. Anesth Analg 1987; 66(10): 995-8.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1213/00000539-198710000-00014] [PMID: 3631599]
[5] Gristwood RW, Greaves JL. Levobupivacaine: A new safer long acting local anaesthetic agent. Expert Opin Investig Drugs 1999; 8(6): 861-76.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1517/13543784.8.6.861] [PMID: 15992136]
[6] Bardsley H, Gristwood R, Watson N, Nimmo W. The local anaesthetic activity of levobupivacaine does not differ from racemic bupivacaine (Marcain): first clinical evidence. Expert Opin Investig Drugs 1997; 6(12): 1883-5.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1517/13543784.6.12.1883] [PMID: 15989589]
[7] Taylor R, Eyres R, Chalkiadis GA, Austin S. Efficacy and safety of caudal injection of levobupivacaine, 0.25%, in children under 2 years of age undergoing inguinal hernia repair, circumcision or orchidopexy. Paediatr Anaesth 2003; 13(2): 114-21.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1460-9592.2003.01036.x] [PMID: 12562483]
[8] McLeod GA, Burke D. Levobupivacaine. Anaesthesia 2001; 56(4): 331-41.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2044.2001.01964.x] [PMID: 11284819]
[9] Pietropaoli JA Jr, Keller MS, Smail DF, Abajian JC, Kreutz JM, Vane DW. Regional anesthesia in pediatric surgery: Complications and postoperative comfort level in 174 children. J Pediatr Surg 1993; 28(4): 560-4.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0022-3468(93)90616-S] [PMID: 8483070]
[10] Yaster M, Tobin JR, Fisher QA, Maxwell LG. Local anesthetics in the management of acute pain in children. J Pediatr 1994; 124(2): 165-76.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3476(94)70300-0] [PMID: 8301419]
[11] Lerman J, Nolan J, Eyres R, et al. Efficacy, safety, and pharmacokinetics of levobupivacaine with and without fentanyl after continuous epidural infusion in children: A multicenter trial. Anesthesiology 2003; 99(5): 1166-74.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00000542-200311000-00025] [PMID: 14576555]
[12] Ladd LA, Mather LE. Central Effects Index-a semiquantitative method for the assessment of CNS toxicity of local anaesthetic agents in sheep. J Pharmacol Toxicol Methods 2000; 44(3): 467-76.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1056-8719(01)00109-5] [PMID: 11395324]
[13] Bajwa SJ, Kaur J. Clinical profile of levobupivacaine in regional anesthesia: A systematic review. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol 2013; 29(4): 530-9.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0970-9185.119172] [PMID: 24249993]
[14] Ivani G, De Negri P, Lonnqvist PA, et al. A comparison of three different concentrations of levobupivacaine for caudal block in children. Anesth Analg 2003; 97(2): 368-71.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1213/01.ANE.0000068881.01031.09] [PMID: 12873919]
[15] Locatelli B, Ingelmo P, Sonzogni V, et al. Randomized, double-blind, phase III, controlled trial comparing levobupivacaine 0.25%, ropivacaine 0.25% and bupivacaine 0.25% by the caudal route in children. Br J Anaesth 2005; 94(3): 366-71.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bja/aei059] [PMID: 15608043]
[16] Lejus C, Roussière G, Testa S, Ganansia MF, Meignier M, Souron R. Postoperative extradural analgesia in children: Comparison of morphine with fentanyl. Br J Anaesth 1994; 72(2): 156-9.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bja/72.2.156] [PMID: 8110565]
[17] Constant I, Gall O, Gouyet L, Chauvin M, Murat I. Addition of clonidine or fentanyl to local anaesthetics prolongs the duration of surgical analgesia after single shot caudal block in children. Br J Anaesth 1998; 80(3): 294-8.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bja/80.3.294] [PMID: 9623426]
[18] Desai DJ, Swadia VN, Gupta KK. Comparative study of two different doses of fentanyl with 0.25% bupivacaine through caudal route for paediatric anaesthesia and postoperative analgesia. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol 2008; 24(1): 31-4.
[19] Doctor TP, Dalwadi DB, Abraham L, Shah N, Chadha IA, Shah BJ. Comparison of ropivacaine and bupivacaine with fentanyl for caudal epidural in pediatric surgery. Anesth Essays Res 2013; 7(2): 212-5.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0259-1162.118965] [PMID: 25885835]
[20] Erol A, Tavlan A, Tuncer S, Topal A, Muslim Y, Ruhiye R. Caudal anesthesia for minor subumblical pediatric surgery: A comparison of levobupivacaine alone and levobupivacaine plus sufentanil. J Clin Anesth 2008; 20(6): 442-6.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinane.2008.04.010] [PMID: 18929285]
[21] Ivani G, De Negri P, Lonnqvist PA, et al. Caudal anesthesia for minor pediatric surgery: A prospective randomized comparison of ropivacaine 0.2% vs levobupivacaine 0.2%. Paediatr Anaesth 2005; 15(6): 491-4.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-9592.2004.01536.x] [PMID: 15910350]
[22] Hong JY, Han SW, Kim WO, Cho JS, Kil HK. A comparison of high volume/low concentration and low volume/high concentration ropivacaine in caudal analgesia for pediatric orchiopexy. Anesth Analg 2009; 109(4): 1073-8.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1213/ane.0b013e3181b20c52] [PMID: 19762734]
[23] Attri J, Kaur G, Kashyap K. Comparison of levobupivacaine and levobupivacaine with fentanyl in infraumbilical surgeries under spinal anaesthesia. Anaes Essays Res 2015; (2): 178-89.

Endorsements



"Open access will revolutionize 21st century knowledge work and accelerate the diffusion of ideas and evidence that support just in time learning and the evolution of thinking in a number of disciplines."


Daniel Pesut
(Indiana University School of Nursing, USA)

"It is important that students and researchers from all over the world can have easy access to relevant, high-standard and timely scientific information. This is exactly what Open Access Journals provide and this is the reason why I support this endeavor."


Jacques Descotes
(Centre Antipoison-Centre de Pharmacovigilance, France)

"Publishing research articles is the key for future scientific progress. Open Access publishing is therefore of utmost importance for wider dissemination of information, and will help serving the best interest of the scientific community."


Patrice Talaga
(UCB S.A., Belgium)

"Open access journals are a novel concept in the medical literature. They offer accessible information to a wide variety of individuals, including physicians, medical students, clinical investigators, and the general public. They are an outstanding source of medical and scientific information."


Jeffrey M. Weinberg
(St. Luke's-Roosevelt Hospital Center, USA)

"Open access journals are extremely useful for graduate students, investigators and all other interested persons to read important scientific articles and subscribe scientific journals. Indeed, the research articles span a wide range of area and of high quality. This is specially a must for researchers belonging to institutions with limited library facility and funding to subscribe scientific journals."


Debomoy K. Lahiri
(Indiana University School of Medicine, USA)

"Open access journals represent a major break-through in publishing. They provide easy access to the latest research on a wide variety of issues. Relevant and timely articles are made available in a fraction of the time taken by more conventional publishers. Articles are of uniformly high quality and written by the world's leading authorities."


Robert Looney
(Naval Postgraduate School, USA)

"Open access journals have transformed the way scientific data is published and disseminated: particularly, whilst ensuring a high quality standard and transparency in the editorial process, they have increased the access to the scientific literature by those researchers that have limited library support or that are working on small budgets."


Richard Reithinger
(Westat, USA)

"Not only do open access journals greatly improve the access to high quality information for scientists in the developing world, it also provides extra exposure for our papers."


J. Ferwerda
(University of Oxford, UK)

"Open Access 'Chemistry' Journals allow the dissemination of knowledge at your finger tips without paying for the scientific content."


Sean L. Kitson
(Almac Sciences, Northern Ireland)

"In principle, all scientific journals should have open access, as should be science itself. Open access journals are very helpful for students, researchers and the general public including people from institutions which do not have library or cannot afford to subscribe scientific journals. The articles are high standard and cover a wide area."


Hubert Wolterbeek
(Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands)

"The widest possible diffusion of information is critical for the advancement of science. In this perspective, open access journals are instrumental in fostering researches and achievements."


Alessandro Laviano
(Sapienza - University of Rome, Italy)

"Open access journals are very useful for all scientists as they can have quick information in the different fields of science."


Philippe Hernigou
(Paris University, France)

"There are many scientists who can not afford the rather expensive subscriptions to scientific journals. Open access journals offer a good alternative for free access to good quality scientific information."


Fidel Toldrá
(Instituto de Agroquimica y Tecnologia de Alimentos, Spain)

"Open access journals have become a fundamental tool for students, researchers, patients and the general public. Many people from institutions which do not have library or cannot afford to subscribe scientific journals benefit of them on a daily basis. The articles are among the best and cover most scientific areas."


M. Bendandi
(University Clinic of Navarre, Spain)

"These journals provide researchers with a platform for rapid, open access scientific communication. The articles are of high quality and broad scope."


Peter Chiba
(University of Vienna, Austria)

"Open access journals are probably one of the most important contributions to promote and diffuse science worldwide."


Jaime Sampaio
(University of Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro, Portugal)

"Open access journals make up a new and rather revolutionary way to scientific publication. This option opens several quite interesting possibilities to disseminate openly and freely new knowledge and even to facilitate interpersonal communication among scientists."


Eduardo A. Castro
(INIFTA, Argentina)

"Open access journals are freely available online throughout the world, for you to read, download, copy, distribute, and use. The articles published in the open access journals are high quality and cover a wide range of fields."


Kenji Hashimoto
(Chiba University, Japan)

"Open Access journals offer an innovative and efficient way of publication for academics and professionals in a wide range of disciplines. The papers published are of high quality after rigorous peer review and they are Indexed in: major international databases. I read Open Access journals to keep abreast of the recent development in my field of study."


Daniel Shek
(Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong)

"It is a modern trend for publishers to establish open access journals. Researchers, faculty members, and students will be greatly benefited by the new journals of Bentham Science Publishers Ltd. in this category."


Jih Ru Hwu
(National Central University, Taiwan)


Browse Contents




Webmaster Contact: info@benthamopen.net
Copyright © 2019 Bentham Open