Articles Vol. 67 No. 10 31/10/2026

COMPARISON OF ANALGESIC EFFICACY OF CAUDAL BLOCK USING LEVOBUPIVACAINE AT VOLUMES OF 1 ML/KG AND 1.25 ML/KG WITH A FIXED TOTAL DOSE OF 2 MG/KG IN CHILDREN UNDERGOING LAPAROSCOPIC INGUINAL HERNIA REPAIR

Nguyen Thi Ngoc Ha, Pham Xuan Hung
DOI: 10.52163/yhc.v67i10.6913
23 Views
0 Downloads
Abstract

Objective: To compare the analgesic efficacy and evaluate the adverse effects of caudal block using a total dose of 2 mg/kg of levobupivacaine at volumes of 1 mL/kg and 1.25 mL/kg in children undergoing laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair.

Methods: A randomized controlled clinical trial was conducted on 60 children (aged 12–60 months) undergoing laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair at Hai Phong Children's Hospital. The children were randomly assigned into two groups: group 1 received 0.2% levobupivacaine (volume of 1 mL/kg), and group 2 received 0.16% levobupivacaine (volume of 1.25 mL/kg). Both groups received a total levobupivacaine dose of 2 mg/kg combined with 0.1 µg/kg of fentanyl.

Results: Group 1 achieved T10 and T12 sensory blocks significantly faster (p < 0.001). However, group 2 exhibited lower intraoperative heart rates, a longer time to the onset of postoperative pain (171.5 ± 5.9 vs. 120.8 ± 7.0 minutes), lower FLACC scores during movement, and required fewer doses of rescue analgesics (p < 0.05). Block quality, EtCO₂, and the incidence of adverse effects did not differ significantly between the two groups (p > 0.05).

Conclusion: Caudal block using 0.16% levobupivacaine (volume of 1.25 mL/kg, total dose of 2 mg/kg) prolonged the duration of postoperative analgesia, reduced pain scores, and decreased the need for rescue analgesics compared to the 1 mL/kg volume, with no observed differences in the investigated adverse events.

Keywords
caudal block; laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair in children; levobupivacaine
References
[1]
1. Abdulhai SA, Glenn IC, Ponsky TA. Inguinal hernia. Clin Perinatol. 2017;44(4):865-877. doi:10.1016/j.clp.2017.08.005. Google Scholar
[2]
2. Esposito C, Escolino M, Turrà F, et al. Current concepts in the management of inguinal hernia and hydrocele in pediatric patients in laparoscopic era. Semin Pediatr Surg. 2016;25(4):232–240. doi:10.1053/j.sempedsurg.2016.05.006. Google Scholar
[3]
3. Chan KL, Hui WC, Tam PKH. Prospective randomized single-center, single-blind comparison of laparoscopic vs open repair of pediatric inguinal hernia. Surg Endosc. 2005;19(7):927–932. doi:10.1007/s00464-004-8224-3. Google Scholar
[4]
4. Dreuning K, Maat S, Twisk JWR, van Heurn E, Derikx JPM. Laparoscopic versus open pediatric inguinal hernia repair: state-of-the-art comparison and future perspectives from a meta-analysis. Surg Endosc. 2019;33(10):3177–3191. doi:10.1007/s00464-019-06960-2. Google Scholar
[5]
5. Ingelmo PM, Locatelli BG, Sonzogni V, Gattoni C, Cadisco A, Lorini M, et al. Caudal 0.2% ropivacaine is less effective during surgery than 0.2% levobupivacaine and 0.2% bupivacaine: a double-blind, randomized, controlled trial. Paediatr Anaesth. 2006;16(9):955–961. doi:10.1111/j.1460-9592.2006.01903.x. Google Scholar
[6]
6. She YJ, Xie GT, Tan YH, et al. A prospective study comparing the onset and analgesic efficacy of different concentrations of levobupivacaine with/without dexmedetomidine in young children undergoing caudal blockade. J Clin Anesth. 2015;27(1):17–22. doi:10.1016/j.jclinane.2014.09.005. Google Scholar
[7]
7. Hong JY, Han SW, Kim WO, Cho JS, Kil HK. A comparison of high-volume/low-concentration and low-volume/high-concentration ropivacaine in caudal analgesia for pediatric orchiopexy. Anesth Analg. 2009;109(4):1073–1078. doi:10.1213/ANE.0b013e3181b20c52. Google Scholar
[8]
8. Cyriac M, Arjun PS, Subbaiah GP, et al. Comparative evaluation of caudal block administration of ropivacaine, levobupivacaine and bupivacaine in pediatric patients undergoing lower abdominal surgeries. Int J Health Sci. 2022;6(S6):11441–11447. doi:10.53730/ijhs.v6nS6.13174. Google Scholar
[9]
9. Kim HJ, Kim H, Lee S, et al. Reconsidering injection volume for caudal epidural block in young pediatric patients: a dynamic flow tracking experimental study. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2024;49(5):355–360. doi:10.1136/rapm-2023-104409. Google Scholar
[10]
10. Xu W, Wei H, Zhang T. Methods of prolonging the effect of caudal block in children. Front Pediatr. 2024;12:1406263. doi:10.3389/fped.2024.1406263. Google Scholar