A Systematic Review of Caudal Anesthesia and Postoperative Outcomes in Pediatric Cardiac Surgery Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: In pediatric cardiac surgery, does caudal anesthesia promote early extubation, reduce pain scores, reduce stress responses, and length of stay (LOS)? DESIGN: A systematic review. PARTICIPANTS: Inclusion criteria included cardiac surgical procedures (with or without cardiopulmonary bypass) in any subject between the ages of full-term newborn and 18 years receiving caudal anesthesia of any medication combination. Searches were conducted with assistance of an Academic librarian from 1947 to July 2017. METHODS: Relevant studies selected were randomized trials or cohort studies. RESULTS: The total number of patients was 2159 in 17 studies. There were 8 prospective randomized clinical trials and 9 cohort studies. Caudal medications included dexmedetomidine, bupivacaine, sufentanil, morphine, fentanyl, and neostigmine. Nine studies reported earlier extubation in patients with caudal anesthesia. Cardiopulmonary bypass and surgical duration mitigated early extubation anesthetic strategies. Three of 5 studies showed reduced pain scores and need for opiates, 2 studies showed no difference. Two of 3 studies showed a reduction in stress response. Hemodynamic assessments were improved in 2 studies and unchanged in 3 studies. Four studies showed reduced hospital LOS. Studies are difficult to interpret because of the comparative techniques used. CONCLUSIONS: The data quality in this review is too poor to make recommendations regarding incorporation of caudal anesthesia into clinical practice. Caudal anesthesia may be favorable for early extubation, improved pain, and hemodynamics and reduced LOS. There are many other anesthetic alternatives to facilitate early extubation. Our review is limited by heterogeneous populations, variable pain measurement scales, and absent definitions of extubation indicators.
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 | 0.007 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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".