Pediatric Regional Anesthesia

Abstract

Two articles in this month’s Anesthesia & Analgesia address safety of regional anesthesia and analgesia in pediatrics.1,2 At first glance, one is very reassuring, the other is frightening. In this Editorial, we will recommend a middle ground. Practitioners of pediatric regional anesthesia should be careful and vigilant but can be confident that many types of complications can be made extremely rare by adopting some recommended practice patterns. Over the past 30 years, pediatric applications of postoperative regional anesthesia and analgesia have expanded rapidly.3 There is now a substantial body of studies regarding techniques, pharmacokinetics, and clinical outcomes. Agerelated trends in local anesthetic pharmacokinetics have been characterized, and safe dosing guidelines have been established.4 Most regional anesthesia in adults is performed awake or with doses of sedatives and analgesics that maintain verbal responsiveness, permitting patient reporting of paresthesias, severe pain with needle movement or injection, immediate symptoms of systemic local anesthetic effect, and progression of sensory and motor blockade over the minutes after injections. Textbooks, review articles, and consensus documents often strongly criticize performing most types of major peripheral or neuraxial blocks in adults under deep sedation or general anesthesia.5 In contrast, most, but not all, regional anesthesia in children is performed under either deep sedation or general anesthesia. Advocates of pediatric regional anesthesia have cited a series of retrospective and prospective safety studies to support their contention that the widespread practice of performing regional anesthesia under general anesthesia is safe.6–8 Polaner et al. report on the first 3 years of prospective registry data from PRAN, the Pediatric Regional Anesthesia Network, a consortium of North American pediatric centers. This report has a number of strengths. The data collection and analysis plan was generally thoughtfully constructed. There is a good degree of detail and new information regarding how procedures are performed and regarding most adverse events. The methodology for data gathering is likely to be fairly complete for intraoperative serious adverse events and for events occurring during patients’ inpatient stay. There are several scenarios that could potentially lead to underreporting of peripheral nerve injuries, most notably partial nerve injuries in nonverbal or nonambulatory children that might evade detection by parents and physicians. For example, a thoracic nerve root or an intercostal nerve injury following thoracic epidural or thoracic paravertebral block might not be detected in a preverbal child. In addition, for a patient in a cast, a deficit might not be apparent until days to weeks postoperatively. The methodology for postoperative surveillance in this registry is likely to omit some cases with delayed detection. Despite these possible sources for underreporting, the PRAN investigators make a good case for the overall very good safety of pediatric neuraxial and peripheral blocks as performed by clinicians in these hospitals. In contrast to the conclusion of the PRAN investigators that “nothing really bad happened,” Meyer et al. showed admirable courage and forthrightness in reporting on 4 cases of neurologic injury following epidural anesthesia in children. All 4 cases involve care by experienced anesthesiologists with extensive experience in pediatric epidural analgesia and acute and chronic pain management. Based on the incomplete information available in this case report, we would tend to agree with the authors’ general contention that there was “absence of proof of medical negligence.” A more important question, which the authors have addressed in their discussion, might be phrased as follows: “Based on these cases and other available knowledge, do we have ways to modify our practice to prevent similar complications in the future?” We consider the 4 cases in this light, taking advantage of “20–20 hindsight.” Among the 4 cases, case 1 was perhaps the most frightening, because the patient was healthy and uncomplicated, the epidural catheter placement proceeded uneventfully at a lumbar level below the terminus of the spinal cord, the duration of general anesthesia was short, and there were no hemodynamic clues intraoperatively to raise concerns. The test dose was appropriate (0.1 mL/kg). E EDITORIAL