Dose response study of caudal neostigmine for postoperative analgesia in paediatric patients undergoing genitourinary surgery

Adjuvants in pain medicine. Selection of the drug depending on the desired effect – so which drug to choose?

To date, much research has focused on finding the ideal adjuvant for local anesthetics. Each of them can have different effects. In anesthesiology and pain medicine, depending on the purpose, one or another effect may be desirable. For example, in some situations it is desirable to accelerate the onset of action or prolong the duration of the block, in others the desired effect may be a “response to intravascular administration”, it should also be borne in mind that not all adjuvants are allowed for intrathecal administration.

Adjuvants in clinical regional anesthesia practice: A comprehensive review

Adjuvants are medications that work synergistically with local anesthetics to help enhance the duration and quality of analgesia in regional techniques. Regional anesthesia has become more prevalent as evidence continues to show efficacy, enhancement of patient care, increased patient satisfaction, and improved patient safety. Practitioners in the perioperative setting need to not only be familiar with regional techniques but also the medications used for them. Some examples of adjuvant medications for regional techniques include dexamethasone, alpha 2 agonists such as clonidine and dexmedetomidine, midazolam, buprenorphine, NMDA antagonists, including ketamine and magnesium, neostigmine, sodium bicarbonate, epinephrine, and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. The aim of the present investigation, therefore, is to provide a comprehensive review of the most commonly used non-opioid adjuvants in clinical practice today. Regional adjuvants can improve patient safety, increase patient satisfaction, and enhance clinical efficacy. Future studies and best practice techniques can facilitate standardization of regional anesthesia adjuvant dosing when providing nerve blocks in clinical practice.

Epidural Neostigmine versus Fentanyl to Decrease Bupivacaine Use in Patient-controlled Epidural Analgesia during Labor: A Randomized, Double-blind, Controlled Study

BACKGROUND

The addition of opioids to epidural local anesthetic reduces local anesthetic consumption by 20% but at the expense of side effects and time spent for regulatory compliance paperwork. Epidural neostigmine also reduces local anesthetic use. The authors hypothesized that epidural bupivacaine with neostigmine would decrease total hourly bupivacaine use compared with epidural bupivacaine with fentanyl for patient-controlled epidural analgesia.

METHODS

A total of 215 American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status II, laboring parturients requesting labor epidural analgesia consented to the study and were randomized to receive 0.125% bupivacaine with the addition of either fentanyl (2 μg/ml) or neostigmine (2, 4, or 8 μg/ml). The primary outcome was total hourly local anesthetic consumption, defined as total patient-controlled epidural analgesia use and top-ups (expressed as milliliters of 0.125% bupivacaine) divided by the infusion duration. A priori analysis determined a group size of 35 was needed to have 80% power at α = 0.05 to detect a 20% difference in the primary outcome.

RESULTS

Of 215 subjects consented, 151 patients were evaluable. Demographics, maternal and fetal outcomes, and labor characteristics were similar among groups. Total hourly local anesthetic consumption did not differ among groups (P = 0.55). The total median hourly bupivacaine consumption in the fentanyl group was 16.0 ml/h compared with 15.3, 14.6, and 16.2 ml/h in the 2, 4, and 8 μg/ml neostigmine groups, respectively (P = 0.55).

CONCLUSIONS

The data do not support any difference in bupivacaine requirements for labor patient-controlled epidural analgesia whether patients receive epidural bupivacaine with 2 to 8 μg/ml neostigmine or epidural bupivacaine with 2 μg/ml fentanyl.

WITHDRAWN: Drugs for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting

BACKGROUND

Drugs can prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting, but their relative efficacies and side effects have not been compared within one systematic review.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review was to assess the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting by drugs and the development of any side effects.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, Issue 2, 2004), MEDLINE (January 1966 to May 2004), EMBASE (January 1985 to May 2004), CINAHL (1982 to May 2004), AMED (1985 to May 2004), SIGLE (to May 2004), ISI WOS (to May 2004), LILAC (to May 2004) and INGENTA bibliographies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials that compared a drug with placebo or another drug, or compared doses or timing of administration, that reported postoperative nausea or vomiting as an outcome.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted outcome data.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 737 studies involving 103,237 people. Compared to placebo, eight drugs prevented postoperative nausea and vomiting: droperidol, metoclopramide, ondansetron, tropisetron, dolasetron, dexamethasone, cyclizine and granisetron. Publication bias makes evidence for differences among these drugs unreliable. The relative risks (RR) versus placebo varied between 0.60 and 0.80, depending upon the drug and outcome. Evidence for side effects was sparse: droperidol was sedative (RR 1.32) and headache was more common after ondansetron (RR 1.16).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Either nausea or vomiting is reported to affect, at most, 80 out of 100 people after surgery. If all 100 of these people are given one of the listed drugs, about 28 would benefit and 72 would not. Nausea and vomiting are usually less common and, therefore, drugs are less useful. For 100 people, of whom 30 would vomit or feel sick after surgery if given placebo, 10 people would benefit from a drug and 90 would not. Between one to five patients out of every 100 people may experience a mild side effect, such as sedation or headache, when given an antiemetic drug. Collaborative research should focus on determining whether antiemetic drugs cause more severe, probably rare, side effects. Further comparison of the antiemetic effect of one drug versus another is not a research priority.

The evolution of spinal/epidural neostigmine in clinical application: Thoughts after two decades

Since the first clinical application of analgesia following spinal anticholinesterase by 1940's, several clinical double-blind studies have been conducted to date, where intrathecal doses of neostigmine in humans ranged from 750 to 1 μg, due to side-effects. Conversely, epidural neostigmine has been evaluated in proportionally higher doses and represents an alternative, but still deserves more investigation concerning both acute and chronic pain, as it seems devoid of important side-effects.

Inadvertent Administration of Neostigmine-Atropine Mixture from Epidural Catheter

Most of the errors encountered during drug applications of anaesthesia may arise from the selection of the wrong syringe and ampule, confusion of epidural and intravenous line, or incorrect dose administration. In this case report, accidental application of reversal drugs via epidural catheter to a patient who was operated on for ureterovesical stenosis is presented. We aimed to indicate the drug errors in anaesthesia practices and discuss measures to be taken to prevent it.

Comparison between the intravenous and caudal routes of sufentanil in children undergoing orchidopexy and further evaluation of the association of caudal adrenaline and neostigmine

Background:

The aim of this study was to compare the intravenous (IV) and caudal routes of administration of sufentanil for children undergoing orchidopexy and also to evaluate the effects on addition of caudal adrenaline and neostigmine.

Materials and Methods:

Sixty patients scheduled for orchidopexy were divided into the following groups: 1) Group IVSu received IV 0.5 μg/kg sufentanil and caudal saline; 2) Group CSu received caudal 0.5 μg/kg sufentanil and IV saline; 3) Group CSuAdr received caudal sufentanil plus adrenaline 5 μg/ml (1:200,000) and IV saline; 4) Group CSuNeo received caudal sufentanil plus neostigmine, and IV saline; and 5) Group CSuNeoAdr received caudal sufentanil plus neostigmine plus adrenaline, and IV saline. Heart rate and mean blood pressure >15% was treated with increasing isoflurane concentration. Consumption of isoflurane, side effects, quality of sleep, time to first administration of analgesic, and number of doses of 24-h rescue analgesic were recorded.

Results:

Groups were demographically similar. Isoflurane consumption showed the following association: Group IVSu = Group CSuNeo = Group CSuNeoAdr < Group CSu = Group CSuAdr (P < 0.02). VAS for sedation on reversal of anesthesia showed the following association: Group CSuNeo = Group CSuNeoAdr < Group CSu = Group CSuAdr = Group IVSu (P < 0.005). Time to the first administration of dipyrone showed the following association: Group IVSu = Group CSu = Group CSuAdr (3-4 h) < Group CSuNeo = Group CSuNeoAdr (10-11 h) (P < 0.05). Number of doses of rescue analgesic showed the following association: Group IVSu = Group CSu = Group CSuAdr > Group CSuNeo = Group CSuNeoAdr (P < 0.005). Incidence of adverse effects was similar among groups.

Conclusion:

Caudal sufentanil alone was no better than when administered in the IV route, and would just be justified by the association of neostigmine, but not adrenaline. Neostigmine association resulted in better perioperative analgesia.

Adjuvants in pediatric regional anesthesia

SUMMARY Local anesthetics have a limited duration of action. Adjuvants are used to prolong the duration of action and to augment analgesia allowing lower concentrations of local anesthetic to be used. Adjuvants have been used more extensively with neuraxial blocks, particularly caudal epidural blocks, but more recently to supplement peripheral nerve blocks. Intrathecal adjuvants are not covered in this review since spinal anesthesia is not widely used in children except in ex-premature infants. Morphine is the historical gold-standard with which other adjuvants are compared. Clonidine is most useful and is becoming increasingly popular, while the side-effect profile of other agents reduces their utility. Concerns with regard to the neurotoxicity of ketamine in animal models has led to its withdrawal in some countries.

Bayesian enhanced meta-analysis of post-operative analgesic efficacy of additives for caudal analgesia in children

BACKGROUND

The authors calculated the effect size for post-operative analgesia of three additives, clonidine, neostigmine, and tramadol to bupivacaine, ropivacaine, or levobupivacaine used for single-dose caudal extradural blockade in children.

METHODS

A meta-analysis was performed for three end points of efficacy: the increase of time until administration of analgesic drugs, the proportion of patients requiring analgesic drugs during the initial 24 post-operative hours, and the amounts of post-operative analgesic drugs. A Bayesian inference supporting direct statements about the probability of the magnitude of an effect was used to compare the effects size.

RESULTS

Neostigmine increased the duration of analgesia by 9.96 h (95% confidence interval: 7.75 to 12.16), as compared with 3.68 h (2.65 to 4.7) with clonidine and 4.45 (2.84 to 6.07) with tramadol. There is a 95% probability that neostigmine increases the duration of post-operative analgesia by more than 8 h, clonidine by more than 2.8 h, and tramadol by more than 3.25 h, as compared with local anesthetics alone. The odds ratios for the proportion of patients requiring analgesic drugs were 0.22 [0.13 to 0.37] for clonidine and 0.28 [0.10 to 0.75] for neostigmine. With tramadol, there was no statistically significant difference. All three additives reduced the amounts of post-operative analgesic drugs. Neostigmine and tramadol increase the probability for post-operative nausea or vomiting (PONV).

CONCLUSIONS

Neostigmine provides the longest post-operative analgesia. With clonidine, the duration of analgesia is shorter and sedation is increased, but the probability for PONV could be decreased.

Neuraxial analgesia in neonates and infants: a review of clinical and preclinical strategies for the development of safety and efficacy data

Neuraxial drugs provide robust pain control, have the potential to improve outcomes, and are an important component of the perioperative care of children. Opioids or clonidine improves analgesia when added to perioperative epidural infusions; analgesia is significantly prolonged by the addition of clonidine, ketamine, neostigmine, or tramadol to single-shot caudal injections of local anesthetic; and neonatal intrathecal anesthesia/analgesia is increasing in some centers. However, it is difficult to determine the relative risk-benefit of different techniques and drugs without detailed and sensitive data related to analgesia requirements, side effects, and follow-up. Current data related to benefits and complications in neonates and infants are summarized, but variability in current neuraxial drug use reflects the relative lack of high-quality evidence. Recent preclinical reports of adverse effects of general anesthetics on the developing brain have increased awareness of the potential benefit of neuraxial anesthesia/analgesia to avoid or reduce general anesthetic dose requirements. However, the developing spinal cord is also vulnerable to drug-related toxicity, and although there are well-established preclinical models and criteria for assessing spinal cord toxicity in adult animals, until recently there had been no systematic evaluation during early life. Therefore, in the second half of this review, we present preclinical data evaluating age-dependent changes in the pharmacodynamic response to different spinal analgesics, and recent studies evaluating spinal toxicity in specific developmental models. Finally, we advocate use of neuraxial drugs with the widest demonstrable safety margin and suggest minimum standards for preclinical evaluation before adoption of new analgesics or preparations into routine clinical practice.

Analgesic and antineuropathic drugs acting through central cholinergic mechanisms

The role of muscarinic and nicotinic cholinergic receptors in analgesia and neuropathic pain relief is relatively unknown. This review describes how such drugs induce analgesia or alleviate neuropathic pain by acting on the central cholinergic system. Several pharmacological strategies are discussed which increase synthesis and release of acetylcholine (ACh) from cholinergic neurons. The effects of their acute and chronic administration are described. The pharmacological strategies which facilitate the physiological functions of the cholinergic system without altering the normal modulation of cholinergic signals are highlighted. It is proposed that full agonists of muscarinic or nicotinic receptors should be avoided. Their activation is too intense and un-physiological because neuronal signals are distorted when these receptors are constantly activated. Good results can be achieved by using agents that are able to a) increase ACh synthesis, b) partially inhibit cholinesterase activity c) selectively block the autoreceptor or heteroreceptor feedback mechanisms. Activation of M(1) subtype muscarinic receptors induces analgesia. Chronic stimulation of nicotinic (N(1)) receptors has neuronal protective effects. Recent experimental results indicate a relationship between repeated cholinergic stimulation and neurotrophic activation of the glial derived neurotrophic factor (GDNF) family. At least 9 patents covering novel chemicals for cholinergic system modulation and pain control are discussed.

Efficacy of bupivacaine-neostigmine and bupivacaine-tramadol in caudal block in pediatric inguinal herniorrhaphy

BACKGROUND

Limited duration of analgesia is among the limitations of single caudal injection with local anesthetics. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of bupivacaine in combination with either neostigmine or tramadol for caudal block in children undergoing inguinal herniorrhaphy.

METHODS

In a double-blinded randomized trial, sixty children undergoing inguinal herniorrhaphy were enrolled to receive a caudal block with either 0.25% bupivacaine (1 ml x kg(-1)) with neostigmine (2 microg x kg(-1)) (group BN) or tramadol (1 mg x kg(-1)) (group BT). Hemodynamic variables, pain and sedation scores, additional analgesic requirements, and side effects were compared between two groups.

RESULTS

Duration of analgesia was longer in group BT (17.30 +/- 8.24 h) compared with group BN (13.98 +/- 10.03 h) (P = 0.03). Total consumption of rescue analgesic was significantly lower in group BT compared with group BN (P = 0.04). There were no significant differences in heart rate, mean arterial pressure, and oxygen saturation between groups. Adverse effects excluding the vomiting were not observed in any patients.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, tramadol (1 mg x kg(-1)) compared with neostigmine (2 microg x kg(-1)) might provide both prolonged duration of analgesia and extended time to first analgesic in caudal block.

Acute pain management in children

The greatest advance in pediatric pain medicine is the recognition that untreated pain is a significant cause of morbidity and even mortality after surgical trauma. Accurate assessment of pain in different age groups and the effective treatment of postoperative pain is constantly being refined; with newer drugs being used alone or in combination with other drugs continues to be explored. Several advances in developmental neurobiology and pharmacology, knowledge of new analgesics and newer applications of old analgesics in the last two decades have helped the pediatric anesthesiologist in managing pain in children more efficiently. The latter include administering opioids via the skin and nasal mucosa and their addition into the neuraxial local anesthetics. Systemic opioids, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents and regional analgesics alone or combined with additives are currently used to provide effective postoperative analgesia. These modalities are best utilized when combined as a multimodal approach to treat acute pain in the perioperative setting. The development of receptor specific drugs that can produce pain relief without the untoward side effects of respiratory depression will hasten the recovery and discharge of children after surgery. This review focuses on the overview of acute pain management in children, with an emphasis on pharmacological and regional anesthesia in achieving this goal.

Transdermal nitroglycerine enhances postoperative analgesia of intrathecal neostigmine following abdominal hysterectomies

This study was carried out to assess the effect of nitroglycerine (transdermal) on intrathecal neostigmine with bupivacaine on postoperative analgesia and note the incidence of adverse effects, if any. After taking informed consent, 120 patients of ASA Grade I and II were systematically randomised into four groups of 30 each. Patients were premedicated with midazolam 0.05 mg/kg intravenously and hydration with Ringer's lactate solution 10ml/kg preoperatively in the holding room. Group I patients received Intrathecal injection of 15 mg bupivacaine with 1ml of normal saline and transdermal placebo patch. Group II patients received Intrathecal injection of 15 mg bupivacaine with 5 mcg of neostigmine and transdermal placebo patch. Group III patients received Intrathecal injection of 15 mg bupivacaine with 1ml of normal saline with transdermal nitroglycerine patch (5 mg/24 hours). Group IV patients received Intrathecal injection of 15 mg bupivacaine with 5mcg of neostigmine and transdermal nitroglycerine patch (5 mg/24 hours), applied on a non anaesthetised area after 20 minutes. Groups were demographically similar and did not differ in intraoperative characteristics like sensory block, motor block, haemodynamic parameters and SpO(2). The mean duration of analgesia was 202.17 minutes, 407.20 minutes, 207.53 minutes and 581.63 minutes in control group (I), neostigmine group (II), nitroglycerine group (III) and nitroglycerine neostigmine group (IV) respectively (P<0.01). To conclude, our results show that transdermal nitroglycerine itself does not show any analgesic potential but it enhances the analgesic potential of intrathecal neostigmine.

Two different doses of caudal neostigmine co-administered with levobupivacaine produces analgesia in children

SUMMARY BACKGROUND

This study was aimed to evaluate the analgesic efficacy duration of analgesia, and side effects of two different doses of caudal neostigmine used with levobupivacaine in children.

METHODS

Sixty boys, between 5 months and 5 years, undergoing genitourinary surgery were allocated randomly to one of three groups (n =20 each). Group I patients received caudal 0.25% levobupivacaine (1 ml.kg(-1)) alone. Groups II and III patients received neostigmine (2 and 4 microg.kg(-1) respectively) together with levobupivacaine used in the same does as Group I. Pain scores were assessed using Children's and Infant's Postoperative Pain Scale (CHIPPS) at 15th (t(1)) min after arrival to postanesthetic care unit, and 1st (t(2)), 2nd (t(3)), 3rd (t(4)), 4th (t(5)), 8th (t(6)), 16th (t(7)), and 24th (t(8)) hour postoperatively. Duration of analgesia, amount of additional analgesic (paracetamol), score of motor blockade and complications were recorded for 24 h postoperatively, and compared between groups.

RESULTS

CHIPPS scores were higher during t(2), t(3), t(6), t(7), and t(8) periods, duration of analgesia was shorter, and total analgesic consumption was higher in Group I compare to neostigmine groups (P < 0.05). Duration of postoperative analgesia and total analgesic consumption were similar in Groups II and III (P > 0.05). Adverse effects were not different between three groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Caudal neostigmine in doses of 2 and 4 microg.kg(-1) with levobupivacaine extends the duration of analgesia without increasing the incidence of adverse effects, and 2 microg.kg(-1) seems to be the optimal dose, as higher dose has no further advantages.

Use of neostigmine in the management of acute postoperative pain and labour pain: a review

Neostigmine is a parasympathomimetic agent that has been recently investigated for use as an adjunct analgesic agent in the perioperative and peripartum period. A number of studies have investigated the intrathecal, epidural, caudal and intra-articular routes of administration of this agent, as well as the addition of neostigmine to local anaesthetics used for brachial plexus block and intravenous regional anaesthesia. While the intrathecal administration of neostigmine produced useful analgesic effects in the postoperative period in some studies, the high incidence of adverse events, mainly nausea and vomiting, limit the clinical usefulness of this route of administration. Several studies investigated the postoperative analgesic effects of epidural neostigmine using a number of different regimens. Overall, this route of administration appeared to improve postoperative analgesia in most studies without increasing the incidence of adverse events, and merits further research. Neuraxial administration of neostigmine appears to be safe in the obstetric population, with no reported adverse effects in the mother or fetus. While intrathecal administration is limited by a high incidence of nausea and vomiting in this patient population, the epidural route appears more promising and requires further investigation. The addition of neostigmine to caudal local anaesthetics was associated with improved postoperative analgesia in a number of studies. A dose of 2 microg/kg proved to be effective in several studies but was associated with an increased incidence of vomiting in some studies. Intra-articular administration of neostigmine 500microg produced a useful analgesic effect in the postoperative period in several studies and was not associated with an increase in the incidence of adverse effects. Studies investigating the efficacy of adding neostigmine to the local anaesthetics used for brachial plexus block and intravenous regional anaesthesia reported conflicting results. Further studies are required to determine the place of the administration of neostigmine by these routes.

Drugs for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting

BACKGROUND

Drugs can prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting, but their relative efficacies and side effects have not been compared within one systematic review.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review was to assess the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting by drugs and the development of any side effects.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, Issue 2, 2004), MEDLINE (January 1966 to May 2004), EMBASE (January 1985 to May 2004), CINAHL (1982 to May 2004), AMED (1985 to May 2004), SIGLE (to May 2004), ISI WOS (to May 2004), LILAC (to May 2004) and INGENTA bibliographies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials that compared a drug with placebo or another drug, or compared doses or timing of administration, that reported postoperative nausea or vomiting as an outcome.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted outcome data.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 737 studies involving 103,237 people. Compared to placebo, eight drugs prevented postoperative nausea and vomiting: droperidol, metoclopramide, ondansetron, tropisetron, dolasetron, dexamethasone, cyclizine and granisetron. Publication bias makes evidence for differences among these drugs unreliable. The relative risks (RR) versus placebo varied between 0.60 and 0.80, depending upon the drug and outcome. Evidence for side effects was sparse: droperidol was sedative (RR 1.32) and headache was more common after ondansetron (RR 1.16).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Either nausea or vomiting is reported to affect, at most, 80 out of 100 people after surgery. If all 100 of these people are given one of the listed drugs, about 28 would benefit and 72 would not. Nausea and vomiting are usually less common and, therefore, drugs are less useful. For 100 people, of whom 30 would vomit or feel sick after surgery if given placebo, 10 people would benefit from a drug and 90 would not. Between one to five patients out of every 100 people may experience a mild side effect, such as sedation or headache, when given an antiemetic drug. Collaborative research should focus on determining whether antiemetic drugs cause more severe, probably rare, side effects. Further comparison of the antiemetic effect of one drug versus another is not a research priority.

Caudal Additives in Pediatrics: A Comparison Among Midazolam, Ketamine, and Neostigmine Coadministered with Bupivacaine

Single-shot "kiddie caudal" with bupivacaine alone is losing popularity because of its duration of 4-8 h. In a prospective randomized double-blind clinical study, we assessed and compared the efficacy of ketamine, midazolam, and neostigmine coadministered with bupivacaine in a caudal epidural to provide intraoperative and postoperative pain relief. Eighty children (ASA status I) aged 5-10 yr undergoing unilateral inguinal herniotomy were allocated randomly in equal numbers (n = 20) into 4 groups to receive a caudal injection of 0.25% bupivacaine (1 mL/kg) with or without ketamine (0.5 mg/kg), midazolam (50 microg/kg), and neostig-mine (2 microg/kg), after the induction of standardized general anesthesia without premedication. Monitoring for pain, sedation, postoperative nausea/vomiting, dizziness, and pruritus was performed by anesthesiologists blinded to the study allocation. The time to first analgesic administration (paracetamol syrup) was longer (P < 0.05) in the bupivacaine-neostigmine group and the bupivacaine-midazolam group than in the other groups. Undesirable effects, such as emesis, pruritus, and dizziness, were comparable in all groups. However, the incidence of hallucination was more frequent in the bupivacaine-ketamine group compared with the other groups. This study shows that single-shot caudal coadministration of bupivacaine-neostigmine and bupivacaine-midazolam was associated with an extended duration of postoperative pain relief.

Postoperative pain management in children

There is increased awareness of the need for effective postoperative analgesia in infants and young children. A multi-modal approach to preventing and treating pain usually is used. Mild analgesics, local and regional analgesia, and opioids when indicated, frequently are combined to minimize adverse effects of individual drugs or techniques.

Caudal neostigmine with bupivacaine produces a dose-independent analgesic effect in children

PURPOSE

To evaluate the analgesic efficacy and duration of varying doses of caudal neostigmine with plain bupivacaine and its side effects in children undergoing genito-urinary surgery.

METHODS

In a randomized double-blind prospective study 80 boys aged two to eight years scheduled for surgical repair of hypospadias were allocated randomly to one of four groups (n = 20 each) and received either only caudal 0.25% plain bupivacaine 0.5 mL.kg(-1) (Group I) or 0.25% plain bupivacaine 0.5 mL.kg(-1) with neostigmine (Groups II-IV) in doses of 2, 3 and 4 microg.kg(-1) respectively. Postoperative pain was assessed for 24 hr using an objective pain score. Blood pressure, heart rate, oxygen saturation, total amount of analgesic consumed and adverse effects were also recorded.

RESULTS

The duration of postoperative analgesia in Group I (5.1 +/- 2.3 hr) was significantly shorter than in the other three groups (II -16.6 +/- 4.9 hr; III - 17.2 +/- 5.5 hr; IV - 17.0 +/- 5.8 hr; P < 0.05). Total analgesic (paracetamol) consumption was significantly more in Group I (697.6 +/- 240.7 mg) than in the groups receiving caudal neostigmine (II - 248.0 +/- 178.4; III - 270.2 +/- 180.8 and IV -230.6 +/- 166.9 mg; P < 0.05). Groups II, III and IV were comparable with regards to duration of postoperative analgesia and total analgesic consumption (P > 0.05). Incidence of nausea and vomiting were comparable in all four groups. No significant alteration in vital signs or any other adverse effects were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Caudal neostigmine (2, 3 and 4 microg.kg(-1)) with bupivacaine produces a dose-independent analgesic effect ( approximately 16-17 hr) in children as compared to those receiving caudal bupivacaine alone (approximately five hours) and a reduction in postoperative rescue analgesic consumption without increasing the incidence of adverse effects.

Caudal additives for postoperative pain management in children: S(+)-ketamine and neostigmine

BACKGROUND

The aim of the present pilot study was to compare the analgesic efficacy of S(+)-ketamine either alone or in combination with neostigmine for caudal blockade in pediatric surgery.

METHODS

A total of 40 children were randomly assigned to receive after induction of general anesthesia either caudal S(+)-ketamine 1 mg.kg(-1) (group K, n = 20) or caudal S (+)-ketamine 0.5 mg.kg(-1) plus neostigmine 10 microg.kg(-1) (group KN, n = 20). Anesthesia was maintained with sevoflurane and a laryngeal mask airway (LMA), no additional analgesics were administered. Postoperative pain and sedation were assessed by the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario Pain Score and Ramsay scale for 24 h.

RESULTS

No statistical difference in duration of analgesia and sedation was found. Mean duration of postoperative analgesia was 18 +/- 9.4 h in group K and 21.8 +/- 6.7 h in group KN. There was a significantly higher incidence of postoperative vomiting after administration of caudal ketamine with neostigmine (30% group KN Vs 0% group K; P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

This pilot study demonstrates equianalgesic effects on postoperative pain relief in children with both caudal S(+)-ketamine 1 mg.kg(-1) and caudal S(+)-ketamine 0.5 mg.kg(-1) plus neostigmine 10 microg.kg(-1). Further studies are required to confirm adoption of caudal neostigmine into routine clinical practice.

Recent developments in paediatric regional anaesthesia

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review will focus on recently published data concerning side effects and complications of paediatric regional anaesthesia, putting into perspective the currently used techniques.

RECENT FINDINGS

Penile block is clearly a technique with a very large benefit and minimal side effects. Ilioinguinal nerve block, on the other hand, quite commonly leads to complications. Single-shot caudal anaesthesia is considered a safe and effective technique; however, even with this widely used block, complications such as sacral osteomyelitis can occur. Recent review articles have focussed on the role of additives for prolonging the duration of paediatric caudal anaesthesia. The use of ketamine or s-ketamine as an additive appears to be most promising for the future.

SUMMARY

Paediatric regional anaesthesia is now widely used for postoperative pain relief in children. However, a careful risk-benefit analysis is always mandatory before such medical interventions are undertaken.