Patient-controlled epidural analgesia in children: can they do it?

UNLABELLED: Extensive clinical experience and many studies support the use of i.v. patient-controlled analgesia (i.v. PCA) and regional anesthesia techniques for the treatment of postoperative pain in children. In contrast, little has been reported about the ability of children to use patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) or about the efficacy of this technique. We report a descriptive analysis of prospectively recorded data in 128 children (132 procedures) in whom PCEA was used for acute postoperative pain control. Satisfactory analgesia was obtained in 119 patients (90.1%) for up to 103 h with no episodes of desaturation and without clinical evidence of toxicity or serious adverse effects. Analgesia was satisfactory with the initial settings in 89 patients; in 38 others, this was achieved with changes in PCEA settings or solution. Five patients were switched to i.v. PCA because of inadequate analgesia. Eight patients with satisfactory analgesia were converted to i.v. PCA because of adverse effects. Children as young as 5 yr had the cognitive ability to understand and the willingness to use PCEA, consistent with reported use of i.v. PCA. Careful attention should be paid to the total hourly local anesthetic dose to avoid exceeding the recommended limits. Our prospectively collected data demonstrate that PCEA provides satisfactory analgesia with a small incidence of adverse side effects in children and should be considered along with other strategies in pediatric postoperative pain management. IMPLICATIONS: A descriptive analysis of prospectively recorded data in 132 children receiving patient-controlled epidural analgesia for postoperative pain relief demonstrates satisfactory analgesia without serious toxicity or side effects in children as young as 5 yr. This modality should be considered as another strategy in pediatric postoperative pain management.

Traditional versus new needle retractable i.v. catheters in children: are they really safer, and whom are they protecting?

Retractable needle IV catheters are designed to reduce needle-stick injuries; their use is mandated by federal regulations. We undertook a prospective data collection with the "traditional" IV catheters (JELCO) versus the "new" (Angiocath Autoguard). Assignment of catheter type was randomized by week. Data collected included assessment of the difficulty of i.v. access; number of catheters used; and splatters or spills of blood on skin, linen, floor, clothing, and operating room table. There were 473 attempted insertions in 330 patients over 20 days. No needle-stick injuries occurred. Seventy-seven blood spills or splatters occurred in 42 patients. The number of splatters or spills was four times more with the new compared with the traditional catheters. There were significantly more total splatters or spills and patients who experienced splatters or spills with new catheters when they were placed by attendings but not when placed by trainees. Our study suggests that use of this technology by more experienced anesthesiologists may increase the risk of exposure of health care providers to blood-borne pathogens. Practitioners should choose the i.v. system that allows the most efficient venous access with the least potential for blood contamination. Hospitals should allow the choice to be made by the individuals using the devices.