ISSN: 0443-511
e-ISSN: 2448-5667
Usuario/a
Idioma
Herramientas del artículo
Envíe este artículo por correo electrónico (Inicie sesión)
Enviar un correo electrónico al autor/a (Inicie sesión)
Tamaño de fuente

Open Journal Systems

Bloqueo caudal ecoguiado con ropivacaína en cirugías infraumbilicales en pacientes pediátricos / Ultrasound-guided caudal block with ropivacaine in infraumbilical surgeries in pediatric patients

Karla Itzel Gutiérrez-Riveroll, Juan José Dosta-Herrera, Héctor Jorge Mejía-Picazo, Karla Guadalupe Lozada-Rosete, Martha Aránzazu Pérez-Penilla

Resumen


Resumen

Introducción: el uso de anestésicos locales como parte de la analgesia multimodal es un concepto atractivo en pacientes pediátricos, ya que la evaluación y manejo del dolor es un reto en menores de 7 años. A pesar de contar con guías y múltiples estudios del cálculo de volumen no se ha emitido una recomendación segura y eficaz.

Objetivo: demostrar que el bloqueo caudal ecoguiado con dosis de 0.75 mL/kg de ropivacaína 0.2% tiene el mismo efecto analgésico que la dosis de 1.2 mL/kg.

Material y métodos: ensayo clínico aleatorizado de equivalencia, prospectivo, longitudinal, comparativo. Se enrolaron 100 pacientes de 0-7 años programados para cirugía infraumbilical electiva o de urgencia entre abril del 2021 y enero del 2022. Los niños fueron aleatorizados 1:1 para asignarse a la realización del bloqueo caudal guiado por ultrasonido.

Resultados: de los 100 pacientes divididos en dos grupos con volúmenes de ropivacaína 0.2% (0.75 mL frente a 1.2 mL). Ambos grupos demostraron las variables de sedoanalgesia transanestésicas y postanestésicas sin diferencias significativas para ambos grupos en la escala de FLACC de dolor después de la cirugía y en recuperación (p > 0.5), en la revaloración de dolor en la escala de FLACC en el consultorio denominado dolor crónico (p > 0.5) en ambos grupos. No se reportaron complicaciones en las consultas de seguimiento y tampoco arritmias en ambos grupos durante la cirugía.

Conclusiones: los resultados en ambos grupos no mostraron diferencias entre un volumen de 0.75 mL y 1.2 mL, la administración de ropivacaína 0.2% se favorece con el empleo de ultrasonido, lo que permite administración eficaz de dosis menores de anestésico local con reducción del riesgo de complicaciones.

 

Abstract

Background: The use of local anesthetics as part of multimodal analgesia is an attractive concept in pediatric patients, since the evaluation and management of pain is a challenge in children under 7 years of age. Despite having guidelines and multiple studies on volume calculation, no safe and effective recommendation has been issued.

Objective: To demonstrate that ultrasound-guided caudal block with a dose of 0.75 mL/kg of 0.2% ropivacaine has the same analgesic effect as a dose of 1.2 mL/kg.

Material and methods: Randomized, prospective, longitudinal, comparative equivalence clinical trial. One hundred patients 0-7 years of age scheduled for elective or emergency infraumbilical surgery were enrolled between April 2021 and January 2022. Children were randomized 1:1 to be assigned to ultrasound-guided caudal block.

Results: 100 patients divided into two groups with 0.2% ropivacaine volumes (0.75 mL vs. 1.2 mL). Both groups demonstrated the trans-anesthetic and post-anesthetic sedoanalgesia variables without significant differences for both groups on the FLACC pain scale after surgery and in recovery (p > 0.5), in the pain reassessment on the FLACC scale in the office called chronic pain (p > 0.5) in both groups. No complications were reported in the follow-up consultations and no arrhythmias were reported in both groups during surgery.

Conclusions: The results of both groups did not show differences between a volume of 0.75 mL and 1.2 mL, the administration of 0.2% ropivacaine is favored with the use of ultrasound, which allows effective administration of lower doses of local anesthetic with reduced risk of complications.


Palabras clave


Anestesia Caudal; Ropivacaína; Ultrasonido; Niños / Anesthesia, Caudal; Ropivacaine; Ultrasonics; Child

Texto completo:

PDF

Referencias


Association of Paediatric Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland. Good practice in postoperative and procedural pain management, 2nd edition. Paediatr Anaesth. 2012; 22 Suppl 1:1-79. Disponible en: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ j.1460-9592.2012.03838.x.

Suresh S, Schaldenbrand K, Wallis B, De Oliveira GS Jr. Regional anaesthesia to improve pain outcomes in paediatric surgical patients: a qualitative systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Br J Anaesth. 2014;113(3):375-90. Disponible en: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bja/aeu156.

Etsuro K, Motoyama PJ. Smith’s anesthesia for infants and children. Philadelphia, Pa: Mosby; 2006.

Walker SM, Yaksh TL. Neuraxial analgesia in neonates and infants: A review of clinical and preclinical strategies for the development of safety and efficacy data. Anesth Analg. 2012;115(3):638-62. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1213/ ANE.0b013e31826253f2.

Polaner DM, Taenzer AH, Walker BJ, Bosenberg A, Krane EJ, Suresh S, et al. Pediatric Regional Anesthesia Network (PRAN): a multi-institutional study of the use and incidence of complications of pediatric regional anesthesia. Anesth Analg. 2012;115(6):1353-64. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1213/ ANE.0b013e31825d9f4b.

Taenzer AH, Walker BJ, Bosenberg AT, Martin L, Suresh S, Polaner DM, et al. Asleep versus awake: does it matter?: Pediatric regional block complications by patient state: a report from the Pediatric Regional Anesthesia Network. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2014;39(4):279-83. Disponible en: https:// doi.org/10.1097/AAP.0000000000000102.

Ecoffey C, Lacroix F, Giaufré E, Orliaguet G, Courrèges P, ASSOCIATION DES ANESTHÉSISTES RÉANIMATEURS PÉDIATRIQUES D’EXPRESSION FRANÇAISE (ADARPEF). Epidemiology and morbidity of regional anesthesia in children: a follow-up one-year prospective survey of the French-Language Society of Paediatric Anaesthesiologists (ADARPEF): EPIDEMIOLOGY AND MORBIDITY OF REGIONAL ANESTHESIA IN CHILDREN. Paediatr Anaesth. 2010;20(12):1061-9. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-9592.2010.03448.x.

Fukazawa K, Matsuki Y, Ueno H, Hosokawa T, Hirose M. Risk factors related to accidental intravascular injection during caudal anesthesia. J Anesth. 2014;28(6):940-3. Disponible en: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00540-014-1840-8.

Gregory GA, Andropoulos DB. Gregory’s Pediatric Anesthesia. 6a ed. Andropoulos DB, Gregory GA, editores. Standards Information Network; 2020.

Davis PJ, Cladis FP, Motoyama EK. Smith’s anesthesia for infants and children: Expert consult premium edition - enhanced online features and print. 8a ed. San Luis, MO, Estados Unidos de América: Mosby; 2011.

Melman-Szteyn E. Anestesia regional en pediatría…30 años y más. Anestesia en pediatria. 2009;01(1):S53-5.

Hong J-Y, 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. Disponible en: http://dx.doi.org/10.1213/ane.0b013e3181b20c52.

Ahiskalioglu A, Yayik AM, Ahiskalioglu EO, Ekinci M, Gölboyu BE, Celik EC, et al. Ultrasound-guided versus conventional injection for caudal block in children: A prospective randomized clinical study. J Clin Anesth. 2018;44:91-6. Disponible en: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinane.2017.11.011.

Guay J, Suresh S, Kopp S. The use of ultrasound guidance for perioperative neuraxial and peripheral nerve blocks in children. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;2:CD011436. Disponible en: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD011436.pub2.

Marhofer P, Bösenberg A, Sitzwohl C, Willschke H, Wanzel O, Kapral S. Pilot study of neuraxial imaging by ultrasound in infants and children. Paediatr Anaesth. 2005;15(8):671-6. Disponible en: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-9592.2004.01521.x.

Kil HK. Caudal and epidural blocks in infants and small children: historical perspective and ultrasound-guided approaches. Korean J Anesthesiol. 2018;71(6):430-9. Disponible en: http://dx.doi.org/10.4097/kja.d.18.00109.

Khalil S, Lingadevaru H, Bolos M, Rabb M, Matuszczak M, Maposa D, et al. Caudal regional anesthesia, ropivacaine concentration, postoperative analgesia, and infants. Anesth Analg. 2006;102(2):395-9. Disponible en: http://dx.doi.org/10.1213/01. ane.0000194590.82645.4c.

Bosenberg A, Thomas J, Lopez T, Lybeck A, Huizar K, Larsson LE. The efficacy of caudal ropivacaine 1, 2 and 3 mg x l(-1) for postoperative analgesia in children. Paediatric Anaesthesia. 2002;12(1):53-58. Disponible en: https://doi.org/ 10.1046/j.1460-9592.2002.00769.x.

Aarons L, Sadler B, Pitsiu M, Sjövall J, Henriksson J, Molnár V. Population pharmacokinetic analysis of ropivacaine and its metabolite 2′,6′-pipecoloxylidide from pooled data in neonates, infants, and children. Br J Anaesth. 2011;107(3):409- 24. Disponible en: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bja/aer154.

Lönnqvist PA, Westrin P, Larsson BA, Olsson GL, Lybeck A, Huledal G, et al. Ropivacaine pharmacokinetics after caudal block in 1-8 year old children. Br J Anaesth. 2000;85(4):506-11. Disponible en: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bja/85.4.506.

Suresh S, De Oliveira GS Jr. Local anaesthetic dosage of peripheral nerve blocks in children: analysis of 40 121 blocks from the Pediatric Regional Anesthesia Network database. Br J Anaesth. 2018;120(2):317-22. Disponible en: http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.bja.2017.10.019.

Cramton REM, Gruchala NE. Managing procedural pain in pediatric patients. Curr Opin Pediatr. 2012; 24(4):530-8. Disponible en: http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MOP.0b013e328355b2c5.

Walco GA, Kopecky EA, Weisman SJ, Stinson J, Stevens B, Desjardins PJ, et al. Clinical trial designs and models for analgesic medications for acute pain in neonates, infants, toddlers, children, and adolescents: ACTTION recommendations. Pain. 2018;159(2):193-205. Disponible en: http://dx.doi. org/10.1097/j.pain.0000000000001104.

Anand KJS, Hall RW. Pharmacological therapy for analgesia and sedation in the newborn. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2006;91(6):F448-53. Disponible en: http://dx.doi. org/10.1136/adc.2005.082263.

Merkel SI, Voepel-Lewis T, Shayevitz JR, Malviya S. The FLACC: a behavioral scale for scoring postoperative pain in young children. Pediatr Nurs. 1997;23(3):293-7.

Nilsson S, Finnström B, Kokinsky E. The FLACC behavioral scale for procedural pain assessment in children aged 5-16 years. Paediatr Anaesth. 2008;18(8):767-74. Disponible en: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-9592.2008.02655.x.


Enlaces refback

  • No hay ningún enlace refback.