Volume 18, Issue 2 pp. 132-139

Safety and efficacy of patient controlled epidural analgesia following pediatric spinal surgery

SONJA SAUDAN MD

SONJA SAUDAN MD

Pediatric Anesthesia Unit

Search for more papers by this author
WALID HABRE MD, PhD

WALID HABRE MD, PhD

Pediatric Anesthesia Unit

Search for more papers by this author
DIMITRI CERONI MD

DIMITRI CERONI MD

Division of Pediatric Orthopedic Surgery

Search for more papers by this author
PIERRE-ALAIN MEYER CSN

PIERRE-ALAIN MEYER CSN

Pain Service, Pediatric Anesthesia Unit, Geneva Children’s Hospital, University Hospitals of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland

Search for more papers by this author
ROBERT S. GREENBERG MD

ROBERT S. GREENBERG MD

Department of Anesthesia and Critical Care Medicine, The Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, MD, USA

Search for more papers by this author
ANDRÉ KAELIN MD

ANDRÉ KAELIN MD

Division of Pediatric Orthopedic Surgery

Search for more papers by this author
BRITTA S. VON UNGERN-STERNBERG MD

BRITTA S. VON UNGERN-STERNBERG MD

Pediatric Anesthesia Unit

Search for more papers by this author
First published: 12 November 2007
Citations: 35
Dr Walid Habre, Head of Pediatric Anesthesia Unit, Geneva Children’s Hospital, 6, rue Willy Donzé, CH-1205 Geneva, Switzerland (email: [email protected]).

The work should be attributed to the Pediatric Anesthesia Unit, Geneva Children’s Hospital, Geneva, Switzerland.

Summary

Background: Patient controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) is uncommon in pediatric anesthesia. Because PCEA offers superior pain control compared with continuous epidural infusions in adults, we prospectively evaluated the analgesia efficacy and safety of PCEA in children and adolescents following extensive spinal surgery.

Methods: Following ethics committee approval, 100 consecutive children [age median (range) 14 (6–19) years] undergoing spinal surgery were studied until the seventh postoperative day, and 98 children received a PCEA. One or two epidural catheters were positioned under direct vision by the surgeon based on the number of vertebral segments operated upon. The epidural solution consisted of bupivacaine 0.0625%, fentanyl 1 μg·ml−1 and clonidine 0.6 μg·ml−1, delivered at a basal rate of 0.2 ml·kg−1·h−1 and a PCEA dose of 0.1 ml·kg−1·h−1(max. 2 h−1). On the fourth postoperative day, PCEA was stopped and analgesia was continued with patient controlled analgesia (PCA) with morphine.

Results: During the PCEA regimen, the maximal scores of the revized facial scale were below 4 at rest with a very high satisfaction rate (>90%). Pain scores were higher during mobilization on the first postoperative day and when PCEA was switched to PCA. The overall incidence of adverse events was low and consisted primarily of technical problems and postoperative nausea and vomiting. Only two children experienced a complication requiring the discontinuation of the PCEA but there were no consequent adverse sequelae.

Conclusions: The present study demonstrates that PCEA provides excellent pain relief following extensive spinal surgery and is associated with a low incidence of adverse events. The use of PCEA should be encouraged in children and adolescents following extensive spinal surgery.

The full text of this article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties.