Pro con debate: The use of regional vs systemic analgesia for neonatal surgery

48Citations
Citations of this article
69Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

In recent years the inclusion of regional techniques to pediatric anesthesia has transformed practice. Simple procedures such as caudal anesthesia with local anaesthetics can reduce the amounts of general anesthesia required and provide complete analgesia in the postoperative period while avoiding large amounts of opioid analgesia with potential side effects that can impair recovery. However, the application of central blocks (epidural and spinal local anesthesia) via catheters in the younger infant, neonate and even preterm neonate remains more controversial. The potential for such invasive maneuvers themselves to augment risk, can be argued to outweigh the benefits, others would argue that epidural analgesia can reduce the need for postoperative ventilation and that this not only facilitates surgery when intensive care facilities are limited, but also reduces cost in terms of PICU stay and recovery profile. Currently, opinions are divided and strongly held with some major units adopting this approach widely and others maintaining a more conservative stance to anesthesia for major neonatal surgery. In this pro-con debate the evidence base is examined, supplemented with expert opinion to try to provide a balanced overall view. © 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Bösenberg, A. T., Jöhr, M., & Wolf, A. R. (2011). Pro con debate: The use of regional vs systemic analgesia for neonatal surgery. Paediatric Anaesthesia, 21(12), 1247–1258. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-9592.2011.03638.x

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free