Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/2440/52682
Citations
Scopus Web of Science® Altmetric
?
?
Type: Journal article
Title: Caudal epidural block versus other methods of postoperative pain relief for circumcision in boys
Author: Cyna, A.
Middleton, P.
Citation: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2008; Online(4):WWW 1-WWW 48
Publisher: Update Software Ltd
Issue Date: 2008
ISSN: 1469-493X
1469-493X
Statement of
Responsibility: 
Allan M Cyna and Philippa Middleton
Abstract: Background Techniques to minimize the postoperative discomfort of penile surgery, such as circumcision, include caudal block; penile block; systemic opioids and topical local anaesthetic cream, emulsion or gel. Objectives To compare the effects of caudal epidural analgesia with other forms of postoperative analgesia following circumcision in boys. Search strategy We searched CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2008, Issue 1), MEDLINE (to April 2008) and EMBASE (to April 2008). Selection criteria Randomized and quasi-randomized trials of postoperative analgesia by caudal epidural block compared with non-caudal analgesia in boys, aged between 28 days and 16 years, having elective surgery for circumcision. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently carried out assessment of study eligibility, data extraction and assessment of the risk of bias in included studies. Main results We included 10 trials involving 721 boys. No difference was seen between caudal and parenteral analgesia in the need for rescue or other analgesia (relative risk (RR) 0.41, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.12 to 1.43; 4 trials, 235 boys; random-effects model) or on the incidence of nausea and vomiting (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.05; 4 trials, 235 boys). No difference in the need for rescue or other analgesia was seen for caudal compared with dorsal nerve penile block (DNPB) (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.64 to 2.44; 4 trials, 336 boys; random-effects model). No differences were seen between caudal block and DNPB in the incidence of nausea and vomiting (RR 1.88, 95% CI 0.70 to 5.04; 4 trials, 334 boys; random effects model) or individual complications except for motor block (RR 17.00, 95% CI 1.01 to 286.82; 1 trial, 100 boys) and motor or leg weakness (RR 10.67, 95% CI 1.32 to 86.09; 2 trials, 107 boys). These were significantly more common in the caudal block groups than with DNPB. No differences were seen between caudal and rectal or intravenous analgesia in the need for rescue analgesia or any other outcomes (2 trials, 162 boys). Authors' conclusions Differences in the need for rescue or other analgesia could not be detected between caudal, parenteral and penile block methods. In day-case surgery, penile block may be preferable to caudal block in children old enough to walk due to the possibility of temporary leg weakness after caudal block. Evidence from trials is limited by small numbers and poor methodology. There is a need for properly designed trials comparing caudal epidural block with other methods such as morphine, simple analgesics and topical local anaesthetic creams, emulsions or gels.
Keywords: Humans
Pain, Postoperative
Anesthesia, Caudal
Anesthesia, Local
Nerve Block
Child
Male
Circumcision, Male
Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
Description: Copyright © 2008 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003005.pub2
Published version: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd003005.pub2
Appears in Collections:Aurora harvest 5
Obstetrics and Gynaecology publications

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.