MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4238636135 · doi:10.4103/0970-9185.92409

Pediatric epidurals

2012· article· en· W4238636135 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Navdeep Sethi, Ravindra Chaturvedi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Anaesthesiology Clinical Pharmacology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAnesthesia and Pain Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAnesthesiaLumbarInguinal herniaSurgeryPerioperativeHernia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pediatric central neuraxial blocks have a history dating back a century. Bainbridge published a report on spinal anesthesia in an infant of 3 months, in May 1900, for the repair of a strangulated hernia. The first publication mentioning caudal blocks in children was written by Campbell in 1933 and the second one by Leigh and Belton in 1951. In 1954, Rouston and Stringer of Canada described lumbar epidural anesthesia for inguinal hernia repair in infants and children. In 1967, Fortuna from Brazil reported a series of 170 patients between the ages of 1–10 years who received caudal epidural anesthesia.[1] However, pediatric epidurals remain an underutilized modality of perioperative pain relief. Although “kiddy caudals” employing local anesthetics (with or without additives) are universally used for intraoperative and postoperative infraumbilical surgery in children, caudal epidural catheters are less often used and routine use of lumbar and thoracic epidural catheters, especially in infants, is still uncommon.[2] Epidural analgesia offers numerous benefits in the pediatric surgical patient. It is commonly used to augment general anesthesia and to manage postoperative pain (for 48–72 h) with minimal hemodynamic alteration. The latter stems from low resting sympathetic tone and reduced blood in lower extremities in children.[1] Effective postoperative pain relief from epidural analgesia facilitates early recovery, rapid weaning from ventilators with reduced PICU costs, reduced time spent in a catabolic state, and lowered circulating stress hormone levels. Precise placement of epidural needles and catheters for single-shot and continuous epidural anesthesia ensures that the dermatomes involved in the surgical procedure are selectively blocked with resultant lower doses of local anesthetics.[34] Notwithstanding the multiple benefits of central neuraxial blocks and widespread usage in adults and children, epidural and spinal regional analgesia via catheters in infants and neonates remains controversial. The performance of regional blocks in anesthetized patients is generally proscribed in adults but accepted and often inevitable in children. Although neurologic sequelae are rare, thoracic and high lumbar epidural catheters should be placed with due care.[4] Besides pediatric epidural catheters (commonly 19G needle with 22G and 23G uniport catheters) may not always be available. There is often a reluctance or inexperience in placing epidural catheters in babies with need for concomitant follow-up. Caudal catheters have a greater risk of bacterial colonization as compared to epidural catheters (29% versus 9%), with Staphylococcus epidermidis responsible for the majority of colonization and tunneling of caudal catheters has been shown to reduce (to 11%) the risk of infection.[5] Some authorities suggest that compartment syndrome may be masked by epidural infusions. However, adequate pain management does not “hide” this complication but can facilitate early diagnosis since the increase in requirement for pain medication precedes other clinical symptoms by an average of 7.3 h.[6] Bupivacaine and ropivacaine are the two most commonly used local anesthetics for neuraxial anesthesia in children. For bolus dosing either 0.2% bupivacaine or 0.2% ropivacaine may be employed with 1 ml/kg for “kiddy caudals” and 0.3–0.5 ml/kg for thoracolumbar epidurals. For continuous intraoperative epidural infusion, 0.1–0.2% of either bupivacaine or ropivacaine is generally used, in dose of 0.2 mg/kg/h (in neonates) and 0.4 mg/kg/h (in older children). For postoperative pain relief adjuvants such as morphine, fentanyl, ketamine, midazolam, neostigmine, clonidine, and recently, dexmedetomidine have all been used with varying success. Fentanyl (1–2 μg/ml) added to 0.1% bupivacaine for postoperative continuous epidural infusions is justifiably popular in well monitored neonates and children.[4] Epidural catheter placement in neonates and infants is decidedly different though not necessarily difficult. The lateral decubitus position with midline approach is commonly chosen though some advocate the paramedian approach.[7] In neonates, the intercristal line bisects L5 (unlike L3/4 interspace in adults) and the spinal cord ends at L3 (unlike L1 in adults). The epidural space is more superficial with a more subtle “give” as the ligamentum flavum is pierced. Generally, the epidural space will be found at 1 mm/kg of body weight from the skin, with significant individual variation.[4] The pediatric epidural catheter also tends to kink or recoil and suggestions for facilitating catheter insertion include use of 21 G instead of 23 G catheters, increasing cephalad angulation of the epidural needle, flexing (or extending the spine), use of “blue” introducer, and injection of saline to open up the epidural space.[7] Cephalad advancement of epidural catheters to the thoracic region via the caudal route has been shown to be feasible in neonates and small infants as epidural fat is loosely packed and there is absence of lumbar lordosis. The position of one-third of caudally placed thoracic epidural catheters in infants was considered to be inadequate after review of confirmatory radiograph.[8] In a recent article, the authors have compared the advancement of 18G epidural catheter with 23G catheter from lumbar to thoracic space in children, with successful catheter placement in only 10-15% but significant analgesia in 87%. The clinical significance of precise catheter placement in children may be open to question. The authors have advocated radiocontrast studies to confirm catheter position in case of inadequate analgesia, notwithstanding exposure to ionizing radiation. Newer modalities of epidural catheter tip confirmation include use of stimulating epidural catheters (the “Tsui test”) for segmental localization, and ultrasound guidance for real-time observation of needle puncture and catheter advancement, which may be a better option than exposing the child to radiation.[9] Pediatric epidurals are increasing in popularity and offer distinct benefits. However, their true place in pediatric anesthesia needs to be established by prospective, randomized, controlled trials addressing all aspects of the technique.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.906

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.078
GPT teacher head0.427
Teacher spread0.350 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Anaesthesiology Clinical PharmacologySame topicAnesthesia and Pain ManagementFrench-language works237,207