Caudal analgesia and anesthesia techniques in children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Caudal epidural blockade remains the cornerstone of pediatric regional anesthesia. In this article we provide a comprehensive review of the recent developments in caudal anesthesia in infants and children. RECENT FINDINGS: Research has focused on prolonging the duration of single-shot caudal blocks and accurately positioning continuous caudal catheters. New local anesthetics with similar potencies but less toxicity have been introduced. Opioids prolong the duration of analgesia of local anesthetic, but have also been associated with unacceptable side effects, particularly in pediatric outpatients. Various non-opioid adjuncts with more favorable side-effect profiles may increase the duration of analgesia. New ultrasound and nerve-stimulation techniques have been developed to accurately guide epidural catheters to a specific spinal level. SUMMARY: The addition of ketamine or clonidine to a caudal local anesthetic prolong the duration of the block. However, a preservative-free preparation of ketamine that is suitable for neuraxial use is not widely available. Ultrasound imaging and electrical stimulation are promising options to accurately position a caudal needle. However, because ultrasound imaging is more difficult in older children, nerve stimulation is a more-suitable technique to accurately guide caudal catheters in this patient population. Although complications associated with caudal block are rare, the risks and benefits must be carefully considered on an individual basis.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".