Comparison of awake spinal with awake caudal anesthesia in preterm and ex-preterm infants for herniotomy.

BACKGROUND

Spinal anesthesia (SA) is widely used for awake regional anesthesia in ex-preterm infants scheduled for herniotomy. Awake caudal anesthesia (CA) is suggested as an alternative approach for these patients and type of surgery. The aim of this study was to compare efficacy and complications of the two different techniques.

METHODS

Two historical populations of 575 ex-preterm infants undergoing herniotomy under awake SA (n = 339; 1998-2001) and under awake CA (n = 236; 2001-2009) were investigated. Data are compared using t-test and chi-square tests (P < 0.05).

RESULTS

The SA group consisted of 339 patients, they were born after 32.0 (3.3) weeks of gestation on average with a mean birth weight of 1691 g (725). The CA group consisted of 236 patients born after 32.1 weeks (3.7) with a mean birth weight of 1617 g (726). At the time of operation, the total age was 41.37 (3.6) and 41.28 (4.0), respectively, for SA and CA patients, and the corresponding weights were 3326 (1083) g and 3267 (931) g for SA and CA patients, respectively. For SA, significantly more puncture attempts were needed (1.83 vs 1.44, P < 0.001). Surgery was performed under pure regional anesthesia in 85% (SA) and 90.1% (CA) (ns). A change to general anesthesia was necessary in 7.7% (SA) and 3.9% (CA) (ns). Overall, intra- and postoperative complications were not statistically different.

CONCLUSIONS

Caudal anesthesia was shown to be technically less difficult than SA and to have a higher success rate. Its application as awake regional anesthesia technique in these patients seems more appropriate than SA.