Department of Anaesthesiology, Pain Medicine and Critical Care, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India.
Department of Anaesthesiology, Hamdard Institute of Medical Sciences and Research, New Delhi, India.
Paediatr Anaesth. 2022 Jan;32(1):35-42. doi: 10.1111/pan.14332. Epub 2021 Nov 16.
Caudal block is a common regional anesthesia technique in pediatrics with landmark method predominantly being practiced. Ultrasound-guided technique provides real-time visualization of the structures and injection while performing caudal block. We performed this meta-analysis to determine the utility of ultrasound in caudal blocks in children over the landmark-based technique.
Randomized controlled trials comparing ultrasound-guided caudal blocks and landmark technique in pediatrics were searched from databases-PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and CENTRAL from inception until August 2020. The primary objective was success rate between the two techniques and secondary objectives included time to perform the block, first puncture success, and complications.
Five trials with 904 participants were included for this meta-analysis. There was no difference in success rate between the two techniques (Risk ratio-1.07; 95% CI [0.97, 1.18]; p = .15). Time to perform the block was similar (Mean difference-8.88 s; 95% CI [-21.64, 39.40; p = .57) while first puncture success was higher with ultrasound-guided technique (Risk ratio-1.31; 95% CI [1.15, 1.49]; p = .0001). Complications like vascular puncture and needle misplacement were lower in the ultrasound group, and no serious complications were seen in any patient. Needle visualization and sacral canal distension were seen in 82% and 97.5% of the cases, respectively, in ultrasound group.
Ultrasound-guided caudal injection does not improve the success rate or time to perform the block but results in higher first puncture success and lower incidence of complications compared to landmark technique.
骶管阻滞是儿科中常用的一种区域麻醉技术,主要采用体表标志法。超声引导技术在进行骶管阻滞时可实时显示结构和注射情况。我们进行这项荟萃分析是为了确定超声在儿童骶管阻滞中的应用相对于体表标志法的优势。
从数据库 PubMed、Embase、Scopus 和 CENTRAL 中搜索比较超声引导骶管阻滞和体表标志法的随机对照试验,检索时间截至 2020 年 8 月。主要目标是比较两种技术的成功率,次要目标包括阻滞完成时间、首次穿刺成功率和并发症。
纳入了 5 项共 904 名参与者的试验进行荟萃分析。两种技术的成功率无差异(风险比 1.07;95%置信区间 [0.97, 1.18];p = 0.15)。阻滞完成时间相似(平均差值-8.88 s;95%置信区间 [-21.64, 39.40;p = 0.57]),而超声引导技术的首次穿刺成功率更高(风险比 1.31;95%置信区间 [1.15, 1.49];p = 0.0001)。超声组的血管穿刺和针置位错误等并发症较低,且无患者发生严重并发症。超声组分别有 82%和 97.5%的病例可观察到针可视化和骶管扩张。
与体表标志法相比,超声引导骶管注射并未提高成功率或阻滞完成时间,但可提高首次穿刺成功率,降低并发症发生率。