The postoperative occurrence of cardio-respiratory adverse events in small infants undergoing gastrointestinal surgery: a prospective comparison of general anesthesia and combined spinal-epidural anesthesia

Awake caudal anesthesia in ex-premature infants undergoing lower abdominal surgery: A narrative review

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The aim of this narrative review is to evaluate the literature describing the use of caudal anesthetic-based techniques in premature and ex-premature infants undergoing lower abdominal surgery.

METHODS

All available literature from inception to August 2023 was retrieved according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines from Medline, PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. Two authors reviewed all references for eligibility, abstracted data, and appraised quality.

RESULTS

Of the 211 articles identified, 45 met our inclusion criteria yielding 1548 cases with awake caudal anesthesia. The review included 558 (36.0%) cases of awake caudal anesthesia, 837 cases (54.1%) of "awake" caudal anesthesia with sedation, and 153 cases (9.9%) of combined spinal caudal epidural anesthesia without sedation. The overall anesthetic failure rate was 7.2% (71.9:1000 caudals). Failure rates were highest for CSEA (13.7%, 7.7-18.4), intermediate for awake caudal (6.6%, 5.26-9.51), and lowest for sedated caudal anesthesia (5.85%, 4.48-7.82). The incidence (range) of perioperative apnea was highest for sedated caudal anesthesia (8.16, 0%-24%), intermediate for awake caudal (7.62%, 0%-60%), and lowest for CSEA (5.53%, 0%-14.3%). High spinal anesthesia occurred in 0.84%, or 8.35:1000 caudals overall. The incidence was highest in awake caudal anesthesia cases (1.97% or 19.7:1000 caudals), intermediate with caudal with sedation (1.07% or 10.7:1000 caudals), and lowest in CSEA (0.7% or 6.6:1000 caudals). Our review was confounded by incomplete data reporting and small sample sizes as most were case reports. There were no high-quality randomized controlled trials, and the eight single-center retrospective data reviews lacked sufficient data to perform meta-analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence to validate or refute the benefits of the use of "awake" caudal anesthesia in premature and ex-premature infants. The high doses of local anesthetics used, the high failure rate, and the increased incidence of high spinal anesthesia would suggest that the techniques offer no real advantages over awake spinal anesthesia or general anesthesia with a regional block.

Consensus Guidelines for Perioperative Care in Neonatal Intestinal Surgery: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) Society Recommendations

Background

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS^®) Society guidelines integrate evidence-based practices into multimodal care pathways that have improved outcomes in multiple adult surgical specialties. There are currently no pediatric ERAS^® Society guidelines. We created an ERAS^® guideline designed to enhance quality of care in neonatal intestinal resection surgery.

Methods

A multidisciplinary guideline generation group defined the scope, population, and guideline topics. Systematic reviews were supplemented by targeted searching and expert identification to identify 3514 publications that were screened to develop and support recommendations. Final recommendations were determined through consensus and were assessed for evidence quality and recommendation strength. Parental input was attained throughout the process.

Results

Final recommendations ranged from communication strategies to antibiotic use. Topics with poor-quality and conflicting evidence were eliminated. Several recommendations were combined. The quality of supporting evidence was variable. Seventeen final recommendations are included in the proposed guideline.

Discussion

We have developed a comprehensive, evidence-based ERAS guideline for neonates undergoing intestinal resection surgery. This guideline, and its creation process, provides a foundation for future ERAS guideline development and can ultimately lead to improved perioperative care across a variety of pediatric surgical specialties.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00268-020-05530-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Regional (spinal, epidural, caudal) versus general anaesthesia in preterm infants undergoing inguinal herniorrhaphy in early infancy

BACKGROUND

With improvements in neonatal intensive care, more preterm infants are surviving the neonatal period and presenting for surgery in early infancy. Inguinal hernia is the most common condition requiring early surgery, appearing in 38% of infants whose birth weight is between 751 grams and 1000 grams. Approximately 20% to 30% of otherwise healthy preterm infants having general anaesthesia for inguinal hernia surgery at a postmature age have at least one apnoeic episode within the postoperative period. Research studies have failed to adequately distinguish the effects of apnoeic episodes from other complications of extreme preterm gestation on the risk of brain injury, or to investigate the potential impact of postoperative apnoea upon longer term neurodevelopment. In addition to episodes of apnoea, there are concerns that anaesthetic and sedative agents may have a direct toxic effect on the developing brain of preterm infants even after reaching postmature age. It is proposed that regional anaesthesia may reduce the risk of postoperative apnoea, avoid the risk of anaesthetic-related neurotoxicity and improve neurodevelopmental outcomes in preterm infants requiring surgery for inguinal hernia at a postmature age.

OBJECTIVES

To determine if regional anaesthesia reduces postoperative apnoea, bradycardia, the use of assisted ventilation, and neurological impairment, in comparison to general anaesthesia, in preterm infants undergoing inguinal herniorrhaphy at a postmature age.

SEARCH METHODS

The following databases and resources were searched: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library, 2015, Issue 2), MEDLINE (December 2002 to 25 February 2015), EMBASE (December 2002 to 25 February 2015), controlled-trials.com and clinicaltrials.gov, reference lists of published trials and abstracts published in Pediatric Research and Pediatric Anesthesia.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials of regional (spinal, epidural, caudal) versus general anaesthesia, or combined regional and general anaesthesia, in former preterm infants undergoing inguinal herniorrhaphy in early infancy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two of three review authors (LJ, JF, AL) independently extracted data and performed analyses. Authors were contacted to obtain missing data. The methodological quality of each study was assessed according to the criteria of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group. Data were analysed using Review Manager 5. Meta-analyses were performed with calculation of risk ratios (RR) and risk difference (RD), along with their 95% confidence intervals (CI) where appropriate.

MAIN RESULTS

Seven small trials comparing spinal with general anaesthesia in the repair of inguinal hernia were identified. Two trial reports are listed as 'Studies awaiting classification' due to insufficient information on which to base an eligibility assessment. There was no statistically significant difference in the risk of postoperative apnoea/bradycardia (typical RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.06; 4 studies, 138 infants), postoperative oxygen desaturation (typical RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.11; 2 studies, 48 infants), the use of postoperative analgesics (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.18; 1 study, 44 infants), or postoperative respiratory support (typical RR 0.09, 95% CI 0.01 to1.64; 3 studies, 98 infants) between infants receiving spinal or general anaesthesia. When infants who had received preoperative sedatives were excluded, the meta-analysis supported a reduction in the risk of postoperative apnoea in the spinal anaesthesia group (typical RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.82; 4 studies, 129 infants). Infants with no history of apnoea in the preoperative period and receiving spinal anaesthesia (including a subset of infants who had received sedatives) had a reduced risk of postoperative apnoea and this reached statistical significance (typical RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.81; 4 studies, 134 infants). Infants receiving spinal rather than general anaesthesia had a statistically significant increased risk of anaesthetic agent failure (typical RR 7.83, 95% CI 1.51 to 40.58; 3 studies, 92 infants). Infants randomised to receive spinal anaesthesia had an increased risk of anaesthetic placement failure of borderline statistical significance (typical RR 7.38, 95% CI 0.98 to 55.52; typical RD 0.15, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.27; 3 studies, 90 infants).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is moderate-quality evidence to suggest that the administration of spinal in preference to general anaesthesia without pre- or intraoperative sedative administration may reduce the risk of postoperative apnoea by up to 47% in preterm infants undergoing inguinal herniorrhaphy at a postmature age. For every four infants treated with spinal anaesthesia, one infant may be prevented from having an episode of postoperative apnoea (NNTB=4). In those infants without preoperative apnoea, there is low-quality evidence that spinal rather than general anaesthesia may reduce the risk of preoperative apnoea by up to 66%. There was no difference in the effect of spinal compared with general anaesthesia on the overall incidence of postoperative apnoea, bradycardia, oxygen desaturation, need for postoperative analgesics or respiratory support. Limitations on these results included varying use of sedative agents, or different anaesthetic agents, or combinations of these factors, in addition to trial quality aspects such as allocation concealment and inadequate blinding of intervention and outcome assessment. The meta-analyses may have inadequate power to detect a difference between groups for some outcomes, with estimates of effect based on a total population of fewer than 140 infants.The effect of newer, rapidly acting, quickly metabolised general anaesthetic agents on safety with regard to the risk of postoperative apnoea and neurotoxic exposure has not so far been established in randomised trials. There is potential for harm from postoperative apnoea and direct brain toxicity from general anaesthetic agents superimposed upon pre-existing altered brain development in infants born at very to extreme preterm gestation. This highlights the clear need for the examination of neurodevelopmental outcomes in the context of large randomised controlled trials of general, compared with spinal, anaesthesia, in former preterm infants undergoing surgery for inguinal hernia.There is a particular need to examine the impact of the choice of spinal over general anaesthesia on respiratory and neurological outcomes in high-risk infant subgroups with severe respiratory disease and previous brain injury.

Repair of duodenal atresia under spinal anesthesia in a low-birth-weight preterm neonate: case report

Duodenal atresia is a well-recognized cause of neonatal bowel obstruction. General anesthesia with tracheal intubation is the traditional anesthetic technique for surgical correction of this condition. Metabolic abnormalities and fluid deficits coupled with residual anesthetics are known to increase the risk of postoperative apnea, prolonging the operating room time and delaying extubation. Spinal anesthesia (SA) is an accepted alternative to general anesthesia in formerly preterm infants. In the current literature, there are reports of successful use of SA for simple infraumbilical surgery and, occasionally, for upper abdominal surgery, but there is no information on the use of SA in neonates for duodenal atresia repair. We present a case of duodenal atresia in a preterm infant at a gestational age of 30 weeks with coexisting bronchopulmonary dysplasia successfully repaired under SA. Further studies that compare the adverse effects with the potential advantages of SA are warranted before future recommendations are made for neonates who are undergoing upper abdominal surgery.

Improved outcomes in paediatric anaesthesia: contributing factors

PURPOSE

To discuss developments in paediatric anaesthesia and explore the factors which have contributed to improved anaesthetic-related patient outcomes.

METHODS

Narrative review of findings in the literature retrieved from MEDLINE/Pubmed and manual search.

RESULTS

Adverse perioperative outcomes related to anaesthesia have been extensively debated over the past few decades, with studies implicating factors such as major human error and equipment failure. Case series and event registries have enlightened physicians on sources of error and patient risk factors such as extremes of age, comorbidity and emergent circumstances. Anaesthetic-related deaths in children fell from 6.4 per 10,000 anaesthetics in the early 1950s to as low as 0.1 per 10,000 anaesthetics by the end of the century. Advances in anaesthetic agents, techniques, monitoring technologies and training programmes in paediatric anaesthesia play a vital role in driving this downward trend.

CONCLUSION

Despite substantial progress, there is still much room for improvement in areas such as adverse-event reporting, anaesthetic-related risk and late neurocognitive outcomes. Systematic reviews comparing paediatric patient outcomes after neuroaxial block versus general anaesthesia are currently unavailable. The future of paediatric anaesthesia will most likely be influenced by much-needed large prospective studies, which can provide further insight into patient safety and service delivery.