File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Comparison of subcutaneous ring block of the penis with caudal epidural block for post-circumcision analgesia in children

TitleComparison of subcutaneous ring block of the penis with caudal epidural block for post-circumcision analgesia in children
Authors
Issue Date1996
PublisherAustralian Society of Anaesthetists. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.aaic.net.au
Citation
Anaesthesia And Intensive Care, 1996, v. 24 n. 3, p. 365-367 How to Cite?
AbstractA randomized prospective, blind trial was conducted comparing caudal epidural blockade (caudal block) with subcutaneous ring block of the penis (penile ring block) in fifty healthy boys between two and twelve years of age undergoing elective circumcision. Subjects receiving caudal block had a longer duration of analgesia (P = 0.003), and took longer to first micturition (P = 0.04) but there was no difference in time taken to awaken from anaesthesia or spontaneously walk unaided. There was an 8% failure rate with the penile ring block but no local or systemic complications related to either block and a very low incidence of vomiting. It is concluded that both techniques are effective. Caudal block is more reliable and produces a longer duration of analgesia but penile ring block is inherently safer and has a lower incidence of adverse effects.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/147176
ISSN
2015 Impact Factor: 1.283
2015 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.488
ISI Accession Number ID
References

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorIrwin, MGen_US
dc.contributor.authorCheng, Wen_US
dc.date.accessioned2012-05-29T06:00:35Z-
dc.date.available2012-05-29T06:00:35Z-
dc.date.issued1996en_US
dc.identifier.citationAnaesthesia And Intensive Care, 1996, v. 24 n. 3, p. 365-367en_US
dc.identifier.issn0310-057Xen_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/147176-
dc.description.abstractA randomized prospective, blind trial was conducted comparing caudal epidural blockade (caudal block) with subcutaneous ring block of the penis (penile ring block) in fifty healthy boys between two and twelve years of age undergoing elective circumcision. Subjects receiving caudal block had a longer duration of analgesia (P = 0.003), and took longer to first micturition (P = 0.04) but there was no difference in time taken to awaken from anaesthesia or spontaneously walk unaided. There was an 8% failure rate with the penile ring block but no local or systemic complications related to either block and a very low incidence of vomiting. It is concluded that both techniques are effective. Caudal block is more reliable and produces a longer duration of analgesia but penile ring block is inherently safer and has a lower incidence of adverse effects.en_US
dc.languageengen_US
dc.publisherAustralian Society of Anaesthetists. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.aaic.net.auen_US
dc.relation.ispartofAnaesthesia and Intensive Careen_US
dc.subject.meshAnesthesia Recovery Perioden_US
dc.subject.meshAnesthesia, Caudalen_US
dc.subject.meshBupivacaineen_US
dc.subject.meshChilden_US
dc.subject.meshChild, Preschoolen_US
dc.subject.meshCircumcision, Maleen_US
dc.subject.meshHumansen_US
dc.subject.meshMaleen_US
dc.subject.meshNerve Blocken_US
dc.subject.meshPain, Postoperative - Drug Therapyen_US
dc.subject.meshPenisen_US
dc.subject.meshProspective Studiesen_US
dc.titleComparison of subcutaneous ring block of the penis with caudal epidural block for post-circumcision analgesia in childrenen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.identifier.emailIrwin, MG:mgirwin@hku.hken_US
dc.identifier.authorityIrwin, MG=rp00390en_US
dc.description.naturelink_to_subscribed_fulltexten_US
dc.identifier.pmid8805893-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-0030012626en_US
dc.identifier.hkuros15084-
dc.relation.referenceshttp://www.scopus.com/mlt/select.url?eid=2-s2.0-0030012626&selection=ref&src=s&origin=recordpageen_US
dc.identifier.volume24en_US
dc.identifier.issue3en_US
dc.identifier.spage365en_US
dc.identifier.epage367en_US
dc.identifier.isiWOS:A1996UR15200011-
dc.publisher.placeAustraliaen_US

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats