Postoperative outcomes of peripheral nerve block versus general endotracheal anesthesia for orthopedic upper limb surgery among pediatric patients: cohort study
Gaea Hansel Porquis,1 Dahlia Arancel1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1Department of Anesthesiology, Southern Philippines Medical Center, Bajada, Davao City, Philippines
2Davao Medical School Foundation Hospital, Medical School Drive, Bajada, Davao City, Philippines
3Ricardo Limso Medical Center, Ilustre St, Poblacion District, Davao City, Philippines
4Brokenshire Integrated Health Ministries Inc, Brokenshire Heights, Madapo, Davao City, Philippines
5Metro Davao Medical & Research Center Inc, JP Laurel Ave, Davao City, Philippines
6Department of Anesthesiology, San Pedro Hospital of Davao City Inc, C Guzman St, Davao City, Philippines
7Community Health and Development Cooperative Hospital, Anda Riverside, Davao City, Philippines
8College of Medicine, Davao Medical School Foundation Hospital, Medical School Drive, Bajada, Davao City, Philippines
Correspondence Gaea Hansel Porquis, greengae@yahoo.com
Article editors Eugene Lee Barinaga, Ludivina Porticos
Received 25 July 2017
Accepted 24 October 2017
Cite as Porquis GH, Arancel D. Outcomes of peripheral nerve block versus general endotracheal anesthesia for upper limb orthopedic surgery among pediatric patients: cohort study. SPMC J Health Care Serv. 2017;3(2):2. http://n2t.net/ark:/76951/jhcs4cq5m4
Abstract
Background. Compared to adult patients undergoing upper limb surgery who receive general endotracheal anesthesia (GETA), those who receive peripheral nerve block (PNB) have better postoperative outcomes.
Objective. To compare postoperative outcomes of PNB and GETA for orthopedic upper limb surgery among pediatric patients.
Design. Cohort study.
Setting. Southern Philippines Medical Center, Davao City, from December 2015 to May 2016.
Participants. 94 boys and girls, 3 to 18 years old, who received either PNB or GETA for orthopedic upper limb surgery.
Main outcome measures. Postoperative pain by visual analogue scale (VAS), need for postoperative rescue opioid doses.
Main results. Of the 94 patients in this study, 47 (50%) received PNB, and the rest received GETA prior to surgery. Patients in the two anesthesia groups were comparable at baseline. The PNB group had lower mean VAS scores compared to the GETA group both at the post-anesthesia care unit (0.70 ± 1.52 versus 4.15 ± 1.78; p<0.001) and at the Orthopedics Ward (0.45 ± 1.49 versus 4.13 ± 1.68; p<0.001). The proportion of patients given postoperative rescue opioid doses was significantly lower in the PNB group (6/47; 12.77%) than in the GETA group (21/47; 44.62%; p=0.0006).
Conclusion. Pediatric patients for orthopedic upper limb surgery who received PNB had less pain postoperatively and needed postoperative rescue opioid doses less frequently compared to those who received GETA.
Keywords. regional anesthesia, Modified Aldrete Score, Pasero Opioid-Induced Sedation Scale, postoperative nausea and vomiting
Introduction
Methodology
Results
|
Table 1 Demographic and clinical characteristics of patients according to type of anesthesia |
|||
| Characteristics | PNB (n=47) |
GETA (n=47) |
p-value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mean age ± SD, years | 9.98 ± 3.96 | 9.02 ± 4.22 | 0.2596 |
| Sex, frequency (%) | 1.0000 | ||
| Male | 9 (19.15) | 9 (19.15) | |
| Female | 38 (80.85) | 38 (80.85) | |
| ASA classification, frequency (%) | 1.0000 | ||
| I | 41 (87.23) | 41 (87.23) | |
| II | 6 (12.77) | 6 (12.77) | |
| Pneumonia, frequency (%) | 2 (4.26) | 1 (2.13) | 1.0000* |
| Bronchial asthma, frequency (%) | 2 (4.26) | 5 (10.64) | 0.4349* |
| URTI, frequency (%) | 1 (2.13) | 0 (0.00) | 1.0000* |
| VSD, frequency (%) | 1 (2.13) | 0 (0.00) | 1.0000* |
*using Fisher’s exact test. |
|||
|
Table 2 Postoperative outcomes of patients according to type of anesthesia |
||||||||
| Postperative outcomes | PNB (n=47) |
GETA (n=47) |
p-value | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean VAS score 30 minutes after entry to the PACU ± SD | 0.70 ± 1.52 | 4.15 ± 1.78 | <0.0001* | |||||
| Mean VAS score at the Orthopedics Ward 24 hours after surgery ± SL | 0.45 ± 1.49 | 4.13 ± 1.68 | <0.0001* | |||||
| Mean POISS score upon entry to the PACU ± SD | 0.04 ± 0.29 | 0.48 ± 0.86 | 0.0015* | |||||
| Mean POISS score upon entry to the Orthopedics Ward ± SD | 0.09 ± 0.41 | 0.38 ± 0.80 | 0.0015* | |||||
| Mean PONV Impact Scale score at the PACU ± SD | 0 | 0.06 ± 0.32 | 0.1792 | |||||
| Mean PONV Impact Scale score at the Orthopedics Ward ± SD | 0 | 0 | 1.0000 | |||||
| Patients given postoperative opioid rescue dose, frequency (%) | 6 (12.77) | 21 (44.62) | 0.0006* | |||||
| Mean age ± SD, years† | 11.33 ± 3.08 | 9.10 ± 3.95 | 0.2138 | |||||
| Mean cumulative postoperative rescue opioid dose ± SD, mg | 6.17 ± 3.87 | 3.98 ± 1.65 | 0.0477* | |||||
| Mean Modified Aldrete Score after 30 minutes at the PACU ± SD | 8.45 ± 1.54 | 7.66 ± 0.82 | 0.0026* | |||||
| Eligible for discharge from the PACU after 30 minutes, frequency (%) | 44 (93.62) | 27 (57.45%) | <0.0001 | |||||
| Mean duration of PACU stay ± SD, minutes | 119.64 ± 43.70 | 134.60 ± 54.51 | 0.1456 | |||||
*Statistically significant.
|
||||||||
Discussion
Conclusion
Acknowledgments
We extend our sincerest gratitude to Ms Marilou Rodrigo Igos, Dr Elsa N Calvez and Dr Mandeep Pathak for the census they provided for our research. We also thank the nurses at the Post-Anesthesia Care Unit and the Orthopedics Ward of Southern Philippines Medical Center for their assistance during the conduct of our study.
Ethics approval
This study was reviewed and approved by the Department of Health XI Cluster Ethics Review Committee (DOH XI CERC reference P15050501).
Reporting guideline used
STROBE Checklist (http://www.strobe-statement.org/fileadmin/Strobe/uploads/checklists/STROBE_checklist_v4_combined.pdf)
Article source
Submitted
Peer review
External
Funding
Supported by personal funds of the authors
Competing interests
None declared
Access and license
This is an Open Access article licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, which allows others to share and adapt the work, provided that derivative works bear appropriate citation to this original work and are not used for commercial purposes. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
References
1. McCartney CJ, Brull R, Chan VW, Katz J, Abbas S, Graham B, et al. Early but no long-term benefit of regional compared with general anesthesia for ambulatory hand surgery. Anesthesiology. 2004;101(2):461-7.
2. Hadzic A, Arliss J, Kerimoglu B, Karaca PE, Yufa M, Claudio RE, et al. A comparison of infraclavicular nerve block versus general anesthesia for hand and wrist day-case surgeries. Anesthesiology. 2004;101(1):127-32.
3. Bosenberg AT. Regional anaesthesia in children. South Afr J Anaesth Analg. 2017;19(6):282-8.
4. O’Donnell BD, Ryan H, O’Sullivan O, Iohom G. Ultrasound-guided axillary brachial plexus block with 20 milliliters local anesthetic mixture versus general anesthesia for upper limb trauma surgery: an observer-blinded, prospective, randomized, controlled trial. Anesth Analg. 2009;109(1):279-83.
5. Hadzic A, Williams BA, Karaca PE, Hobeika P, Unis G, Dermksian J, et al. For outpatient rotator cuff surgery, nerve block anesthesia provides superior same-day recovery over general anesthesia. Anesthesiology. 2005;102(5):1001-7.
6. Mannion S. Regional anaesthesia for upper limb trauma: a review. J Rom Anest Terap Int. 2013;20(1):49-59.
7. Ecoffey C, Lacroix F, Giaufre E, Orliaguet G, Courreges P. Epidemiology and morbidity of regional anesthesia in children: a follow-up one-year prospective survey of the French-Language Society of Paediatric Anaesthesiologists (ADARPEF). Paediatr Anaesth. 2010;20(12):1061-9.
8. Duchicela S, Lim A. Pediatric nerve blocks: an evidence-based approach. Pediatr Emerg Med Pract. 2013;10(10):1-19.
9. Kaur S, Baghla N. Evaluation of intravenous magnesium sulphate for postoperative analgesia in upper limb orthopaedic surgery under general anaesthesia: a comparative study. The Internet Journal of Anesthesiology. 2012;30(2).
10. Pasero C. Assessment of sedation during opioid administration for pain management. J Perianesth Nurs. 2009;24(3):186-90.
11. Pasero C. Managing opioid-induced respiratory depression. Medscape. 2012 November [cited 2017 December 15]. Available from: https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/773907_3.
12. Myles PS, Wengritzky R. Simplified postoperative nausea and vomiting impact scale for audit and post-discharge review. Br J Anaesth. 2012;108(3):423-9.
13. Aldrete JA. The post-anesthesia recovery score revisited. J Clin Anesth. 1995 Feb;7(1):89-91.
14. Ye F, Feng YX, Lin JJ. A bupivacaine–lidocaine combination for caudal blockade in haemorrhoidectomy. J Int Med Res. 2007;35:307-313.
15. Lazăr A, Szederjesi J, Copotoiu R, Copotoiu S-M, Azamfirei L. Combination of ropivacaine and lidocaine for long lasting locoregional anesthesia. Acta Medica Marisiensis. 2014;60(2):41-3.
16. Gan T, Sloan F, Dear Gde L, El-Moalem HE, Lubarsky DA. How much are patients willing to pay to avoid postoperative nausea and vomiting? Anesth Analg. 2001;92(2):393-400.
17. Vaghadia H, Cheung K, Henderson C, Stewart AVG, Lennox PH. A quantification of discharge readiness after outpatient anaesthesia: patients’ vs nurses’ assessment. South Afr J Anaesth Analg. 2003 October.
18. Corey JM, Bulka CM, Ehrenfeld JM. Is regional anesthesia associated with reduced PACU length of stay?: a retrospective analysis from a tertiary medical center. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014 May;472(5):1427-33.
19. Kehlet H, Dahl JB. Anaesthesia, surgery, and challenges in postoperative recovery. Lancet. 2003;362(9399):1921-8.
20. Ramsay MA. Acute postoperative pain management. Proc (Bayl Univ Med Cent). 2000 Jul;13(3):244-247.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License that allows others to share the work for non-commercial purposes with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional, non-commercial contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors grant the journal permission to rewrite, edit, modify, store and/or publish the submission in any medium or format a version or abstract forming part thereof, all associated supplemental materials, and subsequent errata, if necessary, in a publicly available publication or database.
- Authors warrant that the submission is original with the authors and does not infringe or transfer any copyright or violate any other right of any third parties.