Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39069652›Full record

ArticleAnesthesia and pain medicine2024

Expert's tips on regional blocks in neonates and infants.

Vrushali Chandrashekhar Ponde, Amrita Rath, Neha Singh

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Anesthesia and pain medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Vrushali Chandrashekhar PondeDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Surya Children Hospital, Children Anaesthesia Services, Mumbai, India.
Amrita RathDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Banaras Hindu University, Institute of Medical Sciences, Varanasi, India.
Neha SinghDepartment of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Bhubaneswar, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Pediatric regional anesthesia (RA) has emerged as a rapidly advancing dimension within pediatric anesthesia, demanding a continual commitment to knowledge acquisition. This review underscores the contemporary significance of this specialty, focusing on its application in neonates and infants. The primary objective of RA is to address perioperative pain effectively while preserving the delicate physiological balance, thereby enhancing overall patient care. This review explores the advantages offered by RA in this age group. Furthermore, conventional, and recently introduced techniques of RA are examined by exploring the advantages and disadvantages of these methods. The aim is to provide clinicians with a nuanced understanding of their applicability in different clinical scenarios. Additionally, the review elucidates the unique considerations associated with pediatric RA, acknowledging pediatric patients' distinctive anatomical and physiological characteristics. The exceptional cases of congenital anomalies and their implications for the choice of RA are considered. An aspect of the review is its focus on dosages of local anesthetics and the volumes required for various blocks in neonates and infants. The dosages for continuous infusion and practical issues with infusions are considered. Complications due to RA are described with their prevention and treatment. The review offers pragmatic insights into the selection criteria for various regional blocks, aiding anesthesiologists in making informed decisions tailored to individual patient needs.

Indexed as

AnesthesiaAnesthesia, epiduralAnesthesia, spinalInfant, newbornNerve block.

Identifiers

PMID39069652
PMCPMC11566559

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.