Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Anesthesiology 1/2015

Open Access 01-12-2015 | Research article

Ultrasound versus anatomical landmarks for caudal epidural anesthesia in pediatric patients

Authors: Yukako Abukawa, Koichi Hiroki, Nobutada Morioka, Hiroko Iwakiri, Tomoko Fukada, Hideyuki Higuchi, Makoto Ozaki

Published in: BMC Anesthesiology | Issue 1/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Caudal block is easily performed because the landmarks are superficial. However, the sacral hiatus is small and shallow in pediatric patients. In the present study, we evaluated under general anesthesia whether the distance between the bilateral superolateral sacral crests increased with growth, whether an equilateral triangle was formed between the apex of the sacral hiatus and the bilateral superolateral sacral crests, and whether expansion of the epidural space could be confirmed by ultrasound.

Methods

This prospective observational study included 282 children who were ASA I–II. Under general anesthesia, each patient was placed in the lateral bent knees position, and the attending anesthesiologist drew an equilateral triangle and measured the distance between the bilateral superolateral sacral crests along a line forming the base of the triangle. Then the sacral hiatus was identified by ultrasound. Differences of the distance between the anatomical landmarks measured by the anesthetist and by ultrasound were evaluated.

Results

Two patients were excluded because the superolateral sacral crests and sacral hiatus could not be palpated. The base of the triangle increased in proportion to age up to 10 years old, with a significant correlation between age and the length of the base (Spearman’s r value = 0.97). The triangle was not an equilateral triangle under 7 years old. The sacral hiatus could be identified by ultrasound and we could confirm expansion of the epidural space in all patients.

Conclusion

We observed a correlation between age and the length of the triangle base in children under 10 years old. Although detection of the anatomical landmarks by palpation differed from identification by ultrasound in pediatric patients, performing ultrasound is important. Epinephrine should be added to the anesthetic to avoid complications.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials UMIN000017898. Registered 14 June 2015. Date of protocol fixation was 1st December, 2008 and Anticipated trial start date was 5th January, 2009.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Sekiguchi M, Yabuki S, Satoh K, Kikuchi S. An anatomic study of the sacral hiatus: a basis for successful caudal epidural block. Clin J Pain. 2004;20(1):51–4.CrossRefPubMed Sekiguchi M, Yabuki S, Satoh K, Kikuchi S. An anatomic study of the sacral hiatus: a basis for successful caudal epidural block. Clin J Pain. 2004;20(1):51–4.CrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference Lewis MP, Thomas P, Wilson LF, Mulholland RC. The ‘whoosh’ test. A clinical test to confirm correct needle placement in caudal epidural injections. Anaesthesia. 1992;47(1):57–8.CrossRefPubMed Lewis MP, Thomas P, Wilson LF, Mulholland RC. The ‘whoosh’ test. A clinical test to confirm correct needle placement in caudal epidural injections. Anaesthesia. 1992;47(1):57–8.CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Tsui BC, Tarkkila P, Gupta S, Kearney R. Confirmation of caudal needle placement using nerve stimulation. Anesthesiology. 1999;91(2):374–8.CrossRefPubMed Tsui BC, Tarkkila P, Gupta S, Kearney R. Confirmation of caudal needle placement using nerve stimulation. Anesthesiology. 1999;91(2):374–8.CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Senoglu N, Senoglu M, Oksuz H, Gumusalan Y, Yuksel KZ, Zencirci B, et al. Landmarks of the sacral hiatus for caudal epidural block: an anatomical study. Br J Anaesth. 2005;95(5):692–5.CrossRefPubMed Senoglu N, Senoglu M, Oksuz H, Gumusalan Y, Yuksel KZ, Zencirci B, et al. Landmarks of the sacral hiatus for caudal epidural block: an anatomical study. Br J Anaesth. 2005;95(5):692–5.CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Taylor R, Eyres R, Chalkiadis GA, Austin S. Efficacy and safety of caudal injection of levobupivacaine, 0.25%, in children under 2 years of age undergoing inguinal hernia repair, circumcision or orchidopexy. Paediatr Anaesth. 2003;13(2):114–21.CrossRefPubMed Taylor R, Eyres R, Chalkiadis GA, Austin S. Efficacy and safety of caudal injection of levobupivacaine, 0.25%, in children under 2 years of age undergoing inguinal hernia repair, circumcision or orchidopexy. Paediatr Anaesth. 2003;13(2):114–21.CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Adewale L, Dearlove O, Wilson B, Hindle K, Robinson DN. The caudal canal in children: a study using magnetic resonance imaging. Paediatr Anaesth. 2000;10(2):137–41.CrossRefPubMed Adewale L, Dearlove O, Wilson B, Hindle K, Robinson DN. The caudal canal in children: a study using magnetic resonance imaging. Paediatr Anaesth. 2000;10(2):137–41.CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Mirjalili SA, Taghavi K, Frawley G, Craw S. Should we abandon landmark-based technique for caudal anesthesia in neonates and infants? Paediatr Anaesth. 2015;25(5):511–6.CrossRefPubMed Mirjalili SA, Taghavi K, Frawley G, Craw S. Should we abandon landmark-based technique for caudal anesthesia in neonates and infants? Paediatr Anaesth. 2015;25(5):511–6.CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Koo BN, Hong JY, Song HT, Kim JM, Kil HK. Ultrasonography reveals a high prevalence of lower spinal dysraphism in children with urogenital anomalies. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2012;56(5):624–8.CrossRefPubMed Koo BN, Hong JY, Song HT, Kim JM, Kil HK. Ultrasonography reveals a high prevalence of lower spinal dysraphism in children with urogenital anomalies. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2012;56(5):624–8.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Ultrasound versus anatomical landmarks for caudal epidural anesthesia in pediatric patients
Authors
Yukako Abukawa
Koichi Hiroki
Nobutada Morioka
Hiroko Iwakiri
Tomoko Fukada
Hideyuki Higuchi
Makoto Ozaki
Publication date
01-12-2015
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Anesthesiology / Issue 1/2015
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2253
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12871-015-0082-0

Other articles of this Issue 1/2015

BMC Anesthesiology 1/2015 Go to the issue