ArticleSaudi journal of anaesthesia
Comparison of caudal tramadol versus caudal fentanyl with bupivacaine for prolongation of postoperative analgesia in pediatric patients.
Article in Saudi journal of anaesthesia. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- The impact of caudally administrated tramadol on immune response and analgesic efficacy for pediatric patients: a comparative randomized clinical trial.The Korean journal of pain · 2018Article
- Pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics and pharmacogenetics associated with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and opioids in pediatric cancer patients.Expert opinion on drug metabolism & toxicology · 2017Review
- Comparison of analgesic efficacy of caudal dexmedetomidine versus caudal tramadol with ropivacaine in paediatric infraumbilical surgeries: A prospective, randomised, double-blinded clinical study.Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2017Article
- Comparison of Analgesic Efficacy of Dexamethasone versus Tramadol in Combination with Ropivacaine in Caudal Anesthesia for Children Undergoing Lower Abdominal Surgeries.Anesthesia, essays and researchesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsCaudal block is a common technique for pediatric analgesia for infraumblical surgeries. Because of the short duration of analgesia with bupivacaine alone various additive have been used to prolong the action of bupivacaine. The present study was aimed to evaluate the analgesic effect of tramadol or fentanyl added to bupivacaine for infraumblical surgeries in pediatric patients. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe conducted a prospective, randomized, single-blind controlled trial. After written informed consent from parents, 100 patients belonging to American Society of Anesthesiologist physical status I-II, in the age group of 1-12 years, of either sex undergoing infraumblical surgery under general anesthesia were divided into two groups. Group BT received 1 ml/kg of 0.25% bupivacaine with tramadol 2 mg/kg in normal saline and Group BF received 1 ml/kg of 0.25% bupivacaine with fentanyl 2 μg/kg in normal saline with maximum volume of 12 ml in both groups. All patients were assessed intraoperatively for hemodynamic changes, the requirement of sevoflurane concentration, as well as postoperatively for pain by using FLACC (F = Face, L = Leg, A = Activity, C = Cry, C = Consolability), pain score and for sedation by using four point sedation score.
resultsThe mean duration of analgesia was 10-18 h in Group BT while in Group BF it was 7-11 h. The postoperatively period up to 1½ h, Group BF had higher sedation score up to two as compared to that below one on Group BT.
conclusionCaudal tramadol significantly prolongs the duration of analgesia as compared to caudal fentanyl without any side effects.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.