Submitted:
24 May 2024
Posted:
27 May 2024
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Design and Population
2.2. Study Intervention
2.3. Preoperative Management

2.4. Anesthetic and Perioperative Management
2.5. Postoperative Management
2.6. Statistical Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Intraoperative and PACU

3.2. General Ward
4. Discussion
4.1. Main Findings
4.2. Findings in the Context of Existing Evidence
4.3. Implications for Clinical Practice
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Echeverría Sepúlveda, M.P.; Yankovic Barceló, F.; Lopez Egaña, P.J. The undescended testis in children and adolescents. Part 1: pathophysiology, classification, and fertility- and cancer-related controversies. Pediatr Surg Int 2022, 38, 781–787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Elder, J.S. Surgical Management of the Undescended Testis: Recent Advances and Controversies. Eur J Pediatr Surg 2016, 26, 418–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Maier, M.; Ebert, A.K.; Baunacke, M.; Groeben, C.; Eisenmenger, N.; Thomas, C.; Huber, J. [Health care reality of selected pediatric urologic surgeries in Germany from 2006 to 2019]. Urologe A 2021, 60, 1291–1303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Somri, M.; Gaitini, L.A.; Vaida, S.J.; Yanovski, B.; Sabo, E.; Levy, N.; Greenberg, A.; Liscinsky, S.; Zinder, O. Effect of ilioinguinal nerve block on the catecholamine plasma levels in orchidopexy: comparison with caudal epidural block. Paediatr Anaesth 2002, 12, 791–797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Markham, S.J.; Tomlinson, J.; Hain, W.R. Ilioinguinal nerve block in children. A comparison with caudal block for intra and postoperative analgesia. Anaesthesia 1986, 41, 1098–1103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hannallah, R.S.; Broadman, L.M.; Belman, A.B.; Abramowitz, M.D.; Epstein, B.S. Comparison of caudal and ilioinguinal/iliohypogastric nerve blocks for control of post-orchiopexy pain in pediatric ambulatory surgery. Anesthesiology 1987, 66, 832–834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Cross, G.D.; Barrett, R.F. Comparison of two regional techniques for postoperative analgesia in children following herniotomy and orchidopexy. Anaesthesia 1987, 42, 845–849. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Abdellatif, A.A. Ultrasound-guided ilioinguinal/iliohypogastric nerve blocks versus caudal block for postoperative analgesia in children undergoing unilateral groin surgery. Saudi J Anaesth 2012, 6, 367–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Splinter, W.M.; Bass, J.; Komocar, L. Regional anaesthesia for hernia repair in children: local vs caudal anaesthesia. Can J Anaesth 1995, 42, 197–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Stewart, D.W.; Ragg, P.G.; Sheppard, S.; Chalkiadis, G.A. The severity and duration of postoperative pain and analgesia requirements in children after tonsillectomy, orchidopexy, or inguinal hernia repair. Paediatr Anaesth 2012, 22, 136–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kovac, A.L. Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting in Pediatric Patients. Pediatric Drugs 2021, 23, 11–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Beyaz, S.G.; Tokgöz, O.; Tüfek, A. Caudal epidural block in children and infants: retrospective analysis of 2088 cases. Ann Saudi Med 2011, 31, 494–497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sujatha, C.; Zachariah, M.; Ranjan, R.V.; George, S.K.; Ramachandran, T.R.; Pillai, A.R. Transversus Abdominis Plane Block versus Ilioinguinal/Iliohypogastric Nerve Block with Wound Infiltration for Postoperative Analgesia in Inguinal Hernia Surgery: A Randomized Clinical Trial. Anesth Essays Res 2017, 11, 976–980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Desai, N.; Chan, E.; El-Boghdadly, K.; Albrecht, E. Caudal analgesia versus abdominal wall blocks for pediatric genitourinary surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis. Reg Anesth Pain Med 2020, 45, 924–933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Baird, R.; Guilbault, M.P.; Tessier, R.; Ansermino, J.M. A systematic review and meta-analysis of caudal blockade versus alternative analgesic strategies for pediatric inguinal hernia repair. J Pediatr Surg 2013, 48, 1077–1085. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hung, T.Y.; Bai, G.H.; Tsai, M.C.; Lin, Y.C. Analgesic Effects of Regional Analgesic Techniques in Pediatric Inguinal Surgeries: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Anesth Analg 2024, 138, 108–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Shanthanna, H.; Singh, B.; Guyatt, G. A systematic review and meta-analysis of caudal block as compared to noncaudal regional techniques for inguinal surgeries in children. Biomed Res Int 2014, 2014, 890626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
| CB group (n=37) | IB group (n=34) | p-value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (month) Median (range) |
13 (10-55) | 21 (10-50) | 0.014 |
| Weight (kg) Median (range) |
11 (8 - 22) | 12.3 (7.5 – 18) | 0.177 |
| Duration of surgery (min) Mean ± SD |
44.1 ± 13.6 | 43.7 ± 12.1 | 0.963 |
| PACU* time (min) Median (IQR) |
105 (90 – 130) | 90 (73.8 - 120) | 0.109 |
| Duration of anesthesia induction (min) Mean ± SD |
14.9 ± 6.7 | 14.2 ± 4.8 | 0.764 |
| Wald | p | OR | 95% CI | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CB group (n=37): | ||||
| Age | 0.426 | 0.616 | 1.727 | 0.75-3.98 |
| Weight | 0.433 | 0.373 | 0.801 | 0.34-1.87 |
| IB group (n=34): | ||||
| Age | 0.251 | 0.200 | 1.062 | 0.84-1.34 |
| Weight | 0.793 | 0.608 | 0.579 | 0.17-193 |
| CB group (n=37) | IB group (n=34) | p-value* | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Number of pat. requiring i.v. piritramide in PACU | 8 (21.6%) | 18 (52.9%) | 0.008 |
| Median level of CHIPPS Score in PACU (range) | 5 (4-8) | 5 (4-10) | 0.533 |
| Mean time of first CHIPPS Score in PACU (range) | 60 (15-180) | 45 (15-120) | 0.106 |
| CB group | IB group | p-value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Total Number of pat. requiring i.v. metamizole on the ward | 30/37 (81.1%) | 20/34(58.8%) | 0.067 |
| With piritramide | 5/8 (62.5%) | 10/18 (55.6%) | 1.000 |
| Without piritramide | 25/29 (86.2%) | 10/16 (62.5%) | 0.070 |
| Total amount (median (IQR)) of metamizole (mg)/24 h | 150 (115-212.5) | 187.5 (105 – 335) | 0.517 |
| With piritramide | 150 (120-150) | 187.5 (123.75–391.25) | 0.310 |
| Without piritramide | 150 (110-260) | 185 (100-305) | 0.986 |
| Median level of CHIPPS Score on the ward (range) | 5 (2-10) | 5 (4-8) | 0.577 |
| With piritramide | 4 (4-7) | 5 (4-8) | 0.513 |
| Without piritramide | 5 (2-10) | 4.5 (4-6) | 0.439 |
| Mean time (min) of first CHIPPS Score on the ward (range) | 300 (60-840) | 540 (60-840) | 0.050 |
| With piritramide | 400 (240-435) | 577.5 (60-840) | 0.030* |
| Without piritramide | 300 (60-840) | 300 (120-840) | 0.619 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).