Healing Surgical WoundsNCT03563625
Local Wound Infiltration Versus Caudal Block on Wound Infection and Healing in Paediatrics Inguinal Herniotomy
A study testing Caudal block, Wound infiltration and Bupivacaine in people with Healing Surgical Wounds, run by University of Alexandria at 1 site in Egypt.
Trial summary
The aim of the present study is to assess effect of local wound infiltration in comparison with caudal block by bupivacaine 0.25% after inguinal herniotomy in pediatrics on: Wound infection and healing (primary outcome) and postoperative analgesia (secondary outcome). Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 2 to 12 months
- Conditions the study is for
- Healing Surgical Wounds
- What is being tested?
- Caudal block, Wound infiltration and Bupivacaine
- Type of treatment
- Surgery or procedure
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 50 participants
- Where
- 1 siteEgypt
- Study dates
- 4 Nov 2017to 6 Nov 2018
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 2 to 12 months
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Child
Who may be able to join
- Children aged 2 months-1 year
- Admitted for elective inguinal herniotomy surgery.
Who cannot join
- History of developmental delay or mental retardation.
- Diabetes mellitus type I.
- Known allergy or contraindication to any local anesthetics.
- Known congenital anomaly in the inguinal region.
- Any patient who will develop any infections postoperatively (respiratory infection, urinary infection) other than wound infection will be excluded.
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
Official title: The Effect of Local Wound Infiltration Versus Caudal Block on Wound Infection and Healing After Inguinal Herniotomy Paediatrics
The aim of the present study is to assess effect of local wound infiltration in comparison with caudal block by bupivacaine 0.25% after inguinal herniotomy in pediatrics on: Wound infection and healing (primary outcome) and postoperative analgesia (secondary outcome).
Read the detailed description
THE EFFECT OF LOCAL WOUND INFILTERATION VERSUS CAUDAL BLOCK ON WOUND INFECTION AND HEALING AFTER INGUINAL HERNIOTOMY IN PAEDIATRICS
INTRODUCTION Since the introduction of cocaine in 1884, local anesthetics have been used as a mainstay of pain management. However, numerous studies over the past several decades have elucidated the supplemental role of local anesthetics as antimicrobial agents. In addition to their anesthetic properties, medications, such as: bupivacaine and lidocaine have been shown to exhibit bacteriostatic, bactericidal, fungistatic, and fungicidal properties against a wide spectrum of microorganisms.(1) Johnson et al.(2)made a comprehensive literature search using MEDLINE 1950-present for in vitro and in vivo studies pertaining to the antimicrobial activity of various local anaesthetics on a broad range of bacterial and fungal pathogens. Studies testing the effect on microbial growth inhibition of local anaesthetics alone and in combination with other agents, such as: preservatives and other medications, as well as the effect of conditions, such as: concentration and temperature were included for review. Evidence suggests that local anesthetics as a class possess inherent antimicrobial properties against a wide spectrum of human pathogens. Limited studies attribute the mechanism of action of antimicrobial activity of local anesthetics to a disruption of microbial cell membrane permeability, leading to leakage of cellular components and subsequent cell lysis.(2) Multiple local anesthetics at concentrations typically used in the clinical setting (e.g.:- bupivacaine 0.125%-0.75%; lidocaine 1%-3%) inhibit the growth of numerous bacteria and fungi under various conditions. Different local anesthetics showed various degrees of antimicrobial capacity; bupivacaine and lidocaine, for example, inhibit growth to a significantly greater extent than does ropivacaine.(2) In 1943 Lofgren (3) developed lidocaine. This was an amide and had a low risk of allergic reactions in comparison to ester local anesthetics. This was followed by mepivacaine (1957), prilocaine (1960), bupivacaine (1963), ropivacaine (1997) and levobupivacaine (2000).(3) Bupivacaine has been used in clinical practice for more than 40 years. It is remarkably stable in solution and is commercially available in 0.25% and 0.5% solutions (with and without epinephrine). Spinal heavy bupivacaine (0.5% bupivacaine + 6% glucose) is also manufactured. It is four times more potent than lidocaine. Therefore, 0.25% bupivacaine is equipotent with 1% lidocaine. Bupivacaine is particularly cardiotoxic and should never be used in Biers blocks. Bupivacaine binds tightly to tissues and thus has a long duration of action (up to 24 hours in some cases). Adding epinephrine will decrease its toxicity by delaying the drug absorption but, will have minimal effect on the duration of the block.(3)
The recommended maximum safe doses of bupivacaine are as follows:
BUPIVACAINE WITHOUT EPINEPHRINE ------- 2.0 mg/kg BUPIVACAINE WITH EPINEPHRINE ------- 2.5 mg/kg.(3) Caudal anesthesia is one of the most used-popular regional blocks in children. This technique is a useful adjunct during general anesthesia and for providing postoperative analgesia after infraumbilical operations. The quality and level of the caudal blockade is dependent on the dose, volume, and concentration of the injected drug.(4) Prophylactic analgesia with local anesthetics is an attractive concept, especially in pediatric practice, because the evaluation of pain can be very challenging in young children.(5) In contrast to opioids, local anesthetics can be administered safely, and in recent guidelines regional anaesthesia is accepted as the cornerstone of post-operative pain relief in the pediatric patients.(6) Although regional anaesthesia holds a good safety record overall, the global experience with pediatric regional anaesthesia is still quite low; even the most commonly performed procedure, caudal block, represents only 2.5% of all central neuroaxial blocks performed.(7,8) Determining the risk-benefit ratio is rather difficult for techniques that are relatively rarely performed. Wound infiltration can produce reliable analgesia for superficial skin surgery. Infiltration itself is extensively used by pediatricians, surgeons and emergency physicians for skin laceration repair or minor superficial surgery.(5) Several studies have compared the local anesthesia so far, including: ilio-inguinal and iliohypogastric nerve block plus subcutaneous injection by the surgeon against the caudal anesthesia.(9,10) But to our knowledge, there is still no study comparing the local wound infiltration by itself and caudal anesthesia for postoperative analgesia as regard their effect on wound infection and healing.
AIM OF THE WORK The aim of the present study is to assess effect of local wound infiltration in comparison with caudal block by bupivacaine 0.25% after inguinal herniotomy in pediatrics on: Wound infection and healing (primary outcome) and postoperative analgesia (secondary outcome).
PATIENTS After approval of ethical committee faculty of medicine, University of Alexandria, a prospective interventional concealed randomized clinical study which will include 50 children (calculated by department of community medicine) aged 2 months-1 year admitted to the Pediatrics Surgery Department of Alexandria University Hospitals for elective inguinal herniotomy surgery, and an informed written consent will be taken from the parents or the guardians.
All patients will be selected to be grade I or II according to American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification
The patients will be classified randomly into two groups using closed envelope technique, 25 patients each:
Group L: 25 patients will receive 1mg/kg bupivacaine 0.25% (diluted as 1ml bupivacaine + 1ml normal saline) by local infiltration in the wound before closure of the skin and subcutaneous.
Group C: 25 patients will receive caudal block with 1mg/kg bupivacaine 0.25%.
Exclusion criteria included:
- History of developmental delay or mental retardation.
- Diabetes mellitus type I.
- Known allergy or contraindication to any local anesthetics.
- Known congenital anomaly in the inguinal region.
- Any patient who will develop any infections postoperatively (respiratory infection, urinary infection) other than wound infection will be excluded.
METHODS
All patients will be subjected to the following:
- Pre-operative visit:
Each patient will be visited the day before surgery for the following:
- Proper evaluation by history taking from parents, clinical examination and laboratory investigations.
- Explanation of the technique of postoperative analgesia to the parents and explain to them that the wound will be observed postoperatively for signs of inflammation and infection.
- Pre-medication:
Paracetamol suppository 40mg/kg will be given half an hour before surgery.
- Anaesthesia:
- All patients will be monitored for:
- Heart rate (beats/minute) through continuous ECG tracing (lead II).
- Non-invasive arterial blood pressure (mmHg).
- Arterial oxygen saturation using pulse oximetry (%).
- Induction of general anaesthesia will be achieved with 8% sevoflurane in 100% oxygen.
- After securing an IV line with cannula, all patients will receive fentanyl 1mcg /kg.
- Laryngeal mask air way of proper size will be inserted under adequate depth of anaesthesia.
- Anaesthesia will be maintained with sevoflurane with concentration maintaining adequate depth of anaesthesia.
- At the end of procedure and before application of stitches, bupivacaine 0.25% will be infiltrated in the skin and subcutaneous layer in group L, and caudal block will be performed in group C; at the end of surgery inhalational anaesthetics will be stopped; laryngeal mask will be removed when patient is fully conscious.
- Postoperative pain will be assessed using the Faces Legs Activity Cry Consolability tool (FLACC, 0- 10) at 15 min, 1, and 3 h after operation.(11) Table (I): FLACC scale (Behavioral observation pain rating scale) Categories Scoring 0 1 2 Face No particular expression or smile; disinterested Occasional grimace or frown, withdrawn Frequent to constant frown, clenched jaw, quivering chin Legs No position or relaxed Uneasy, restless, tense Kicking, or legs drawn up Activity Lying quietly, normal position, moves easily Squirming, shifting back and forth, tense Arched, rigid, or jerking Cry No crying (awake or asleep) Moans or whimpers, occasional complaint Crying steadily, screams or sobs, frequent complaints Consolability Content, relaxed Reassured by occasional touching, hugging, or talking to. Distractible Difficult to console or comfort Each of the five categories (F) face; (L) legs; (A) Activity; (C) Cry; (C) Consolability is scored from 0-2, which results in a total score between 0 and 10.
- A child with a score of more than 4 on FLACC will receive intravenous acetaminophen 15mg/kg.
- The incision will then be monitored for signs of infection (Redness, Hotness, Swelling, Discharge, or Separation/Breakdown of deep tissues).
- Data regarding the incision will be obtained on day 7 postoperative or with sutures removal or any time before this if he/she develops any of wound inflammation signs earlier.
- Measurements:
- Postoperative vital signs/hour for 4 hours.
- Faces Legs Activity Cry Consolability tool (FLACC, 0- 10) at 15 min, 1, and 3 h after operation.(11)
- Timing of first postoperative complaint of pain, first requirement for postoperative analgesia and total consumption of analgesia
- Laboratory measurements: white blood cells count at day 0 and day 7 postoperative.
- Culture: with first dressing change at day 7 postoperative from the wounds with discharge (suspected infected wounds).
- Wound infection and healing scale: using Southampton scoring system,(12) which classifies wounds according to healing into 6 grades (0, I, II, III, IV, V).
Table (II): Southampton wound scoring system Southampton wound scoring system Grade Appearance 0 Normal healing I Normal healing with bruising or mild erythema A Some bruising B Considerable bruising C Mild erythema II Erythema +other signs of inflammation A At one point B Around the sutures C Along the wound D Around the wound III Clear or heamoserous discharge A At one pint only (<2cm) B Along the wound (>2cm) C Large volume D Prolonged (3days) Major complication IV pus A At one point only (<2cm) B Along the wound (>2cm) V: deep or severe wound infection with or without tissue break down; hematoma requiring aspiration.
ETHICS OF RESEARCH
Research on human or human products:
Prospective study: Informed consent will be taken from patients. In case of incompetent patients the informed consent will be taken from the guardians.
- Conditions
- Healing Surgical Wounds
- Being tested
- Caudal block, Wound infiltration, Bupivacaine
- Keywords
- Local anesthetic, Hernioraphy, Wound healing
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Caudal blockProcedure or surgery
Caudal block/bupivacaine 0.25%
Wound infiltrationProcedure or surgery
Local anesthetic wound infiltration/bupivacaine 0.25%
BupivacaineDrug
bupivacaine
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Caudal block | Active comparator | Caudal block with 1mg/kg bupivacaine 0.25%. Receives: Procedure: Caudal block; Drug: Bupivacaine |
| Wound infiltration | Active comparator | Local wound infiltration with 1mg/kg bupivacaine 0.25%. Receives: Procedure: Wound infiltration; Drug: Bupivacaine |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Wound healing will be assessed and will be given grades 0-5
Wound healing will be assessed and will be given grades 0-5
Measured: 7 days
Secondary outcomes (5)
Pain score (Faces)
Faces 0-2
Measured: one day.
Pain score (Legs)
Legs 0-2
Measured: one day.
Pain score (Activity)
Activity 0-2
Measured: one day.
Pain score (Cry)
Cry 0-2
Measured: one day.
Pain score (Consolability)
Consolability 0-2
Measured: one day.
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted20 Jun 2018
- Study start4 Nov 2017
- Primary completion30 Oct 2018
- Study completion6 Nov 2018
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (12)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Healing Surgical WoundsStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Model description
- The patients will be classified randomly into two groups using closed envelope technique, 25 patients each: Group L: 25 patients will receive 1mg/kg bupivacaine 0.25% (diluted as 1ml bupivacaine + 1ml normal saline) by local infiltration in the wound before closure of the skin and subcutaneous. Group C: 25 patients will receive caudal block with 1mg/kg bupivacaine 0.25%.
- Masking
- Triple blind
- Who is masked
- Participant, Care provider, Outcomes assessor
- Enrolment
- 50 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- University of Alexandria
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Mohammad Hazem I. Ahmad Sabry, University of Alexandria
- Investigators
- Mohammad Hazem I Ahmad Sabry, MB,ChB MD, Principal investigator, Alexandria UniveristyRamadan A Ammar, MB,ChB MD, Study director, Alexandria UniveristyRana Bakr, MB,ChB, Principal investigator, Alexandria Univeristy
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT03563625
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 050103846/11-4-2017
- Status last verified
- Dec 2018
- First submitted
- 1 Dec 2017
- Last updated
- 11 Dec 2018
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
Publications
Eldor J. The antibacterial and antifungal effects of bupivacaine wound analgesia. JNYSORA 2009; 14:1-14.
Johnson SM, Saint John BE, Dine AP. Local anesthetics as antimicrobial agents: a review. Surg Infect (Larchmt). 2008 Apr;9(2):205-13. doi: 10.1089/sur.2007.036.
PubMed 18426354Anaethesia UK. Pharmacology of regional anaesthesia. Anaethesia UK [Last Updated: 19 Nov, 2009]. Available from: http://www.frca.co.uk/article.aspx?articleid=100816. [Accessed on: 16 May, 2016].
Silvani P, Camporesi A, Agostino MR, Salvo I. Caudal anesthesia in pediatrics: an update. Minerva Anestesiol. 2006 Jun;72(6):453-9.
PubMed 16682915Association of Paediatric Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland. Good practice in postoperative and procedural pain management, 2nd edition. Paediatr Anaesth. 2012 Jul;22 Suppl 1:1-79. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-9592.2012.03838.x. No abstract available.
PubMed 22817132Fell D, Derrington MC, Taylor E, Wandless JG. Paediatric postoperative analgesia. A comparison between caudal block and wound infiltration of local anaesthetic. Anaesthesia. 1988 Feb;43(2):107-10.
PubMed 3354802Lao OB, Fitzgibbons RJ Jr, Cusick RA. Pediatric inguinal hernias, hydroceles, and undescended testicles. Surg Clin North Am. 2012 Jun;92(3):487-504, vii. doi: 10.1016/j.suc.2012.03.017.
PubMed 22595705Johr M. Regional anaesthesia in neonates, infants and children: an educational review. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2015 May;32(5):289-97. doi: 10.1097/EJA.0000000000000239.
PubMed 25693139Polaner DM, Taenzer AH, Walker BJ, Bosenberg A, Krane EJ, Suresh S, Wolf C, Martin LD. Pediatric Regional Anesthesia Network (PRAN): a multi-institutional study of the use and incidence of complications of pediatric regional anesthesia. Anesth Analg. 2012 Dec;115(6):1353-64. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0b013e31825d9f4b. Epub 2012 Jun 13.
PubMed 22696610Cook TM, Counsell D, Wildsmith JA; Royal College of Anaesthetists Third National Audit Project. Major complications of central neuraxial block: report on the Third National Audit Project of the Royal College of Anaesthetists. Br J Anaesth. 2009 Feb;102(2):179-90. doi: 10.1093/bja/aen360. Epub 2009 Jan 12.
PubMed 19139027Crellin D, Sullivan TP, Babl FE, O'Sullivan R, Hutchinson A. Analysis of the validation of existing behavioral pain and distress scales for use in the procedural setting. Paediatr Anaesth. 2007 Aug;17(8):720-33. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-9592.2007.02218.x.
PubMed 17596217Bailey IS, Karran SE, Toyn K, Brough P, Ranaboldo C, Karran SJ. Community surveillance of complications after hernia surgery. BMJ. 1992 Feb 22;304(6825):469-71. doi: 10.1136/bmj.304.6825.469.
PubMed 1547415
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 11 Dec 2018. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- The Effect of Local Wound Infiltration Versus Caudal Block on Wound Infection and Healing After Inguinal Herniotomy Paediatrics
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT03563625
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- 050103846/11-4-2017
- Conditions
- Healing Surgical Wounds
- Keywords
- Local anesthetic, Hernioraphy, Wound healing
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 50 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- University of AlexandriaUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 4 Nov 2017 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 30 Oct 2018 (actual)
- Study completion
- 6 Nov 2018 (actual)
- First posted
- 20 Jun 2018 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
The aim of the present study is to assess effect of local wound infiltration in comparison with caudal block by bupivacaine 0.25% after inguinal herniotomy in pediatrics on: Wound infection and healing (primary outcome) and postoperative analgesia (secondary outcome).
Detailed description
THE EFFECT OF LOCAL WOUND INFILTERATION VERSUS CAUDAL BLOCK ON WOUND INFECTION AND HEALING AFTER INGUINAL HERNIOTOMY IN PAEDIATRICS
INTRODUCTION Since the introduction of cocaine in 1884, local anesthetics have been used as a mainstay of pain management. However, numerous studies over the past several decades have elucidated the supplemental role of local anesthetics as antimicrobial agents. In addition to their anesthetic properties, medications, such as: bupivacaine and lidocaine have been shown to exhibit bacteriostatic, bactericidal, fungistatic, and fungicidal properties against a wide spectrum of microorganisms.(1) Johnson et al.(2)made a comprehensive literature search using MEDLINE 1950-present for in vitro and in vivo studies pertaining to the antimicrobial activity of various local anaesthetics on a broad range of bacterial and fungal pathogens. Studies testing the effect on microbial growth inhibition of local anaesthetics alone and in combination with other agents, such as: preservatives and other medications, as well as the effect of conditions, such as: concentration and temperature were included for review. Evidence suggests that local anesthetics as a class possess inherent antimicrobial properties against a wide spectrum of human pathogens. Limited studies attribute the mechanism of action of antimicrobial activity of local anesthetics to a disruption of microbial cell membrane permeability, leading to leakage of cellular components and subsequent cell lysis.(2) Multiple local anesthetics at concentrations typically used in the clinical setting (e.g.:- bupivacaine 0.125%-0.75%; lidocaine 1%-3%) inhibit the growth of numerous bacteria and fungi under various conditions. Different local anesthetics showed various degrees of antimicrobial capacity; bupivacaine and lidocaine, for example, inhibit growth to a significantly greater extent than does ropivacaine.(2) In 1943 Lofgren (3) developed lidocaine. This was an amide and had a low risk of allergic reactions in comparison to ester local anesthetics. This was followed by mepivacaine (1957), prilocaine (1960), bupivacaine (1963), ropivacaine (1997) and levobupivacaine (2000).(3) Bupivacaine has been used in clinical practice for more than 40 years. It is remarkably stable in solution and is commercially available in 0.25% and 0.5% solutions (with and without epinephrine). Spinal heavy bupivacaine (0.5% bupivacaine + 6% glucose) is also manufactured. It is four times more potent than lidocaine. Therefore, 0.25% bupivacaine is equipotent with 1% lidocaine. Bupivacaine is particularly cardiotoxic and should never be used in Biers blocks. Bupivacaine binds tightly to tissues and thus has a long duration of action (up to 24 hours in some cases). Adding epinephrine will decrease its toxicity by delaying the drug absorption but, will have minimal effect on the duration of the block.(3)
The recommended maximum safe doses of bupivacaine are as follows:
BUPIVACAINE WITHOUT EPINEPHRINE ------- 2.0 mg/kg BUPIVACAINE WITH EPINEPHRINE ------- 2.5 mg/kg.(3) Caudal anesthesia is one of the most used-popular regional blocks in children. This technique is a useful adjunct during general anesthesia and for providing postoperative analgesia after infraumbilical operations. The quality and level of the caudal blockade is dependent on the dose, volume, and concentration of the injected drug.(4) Prophylactic analgesia with local anesthetics is an attractive concept, especially in pediatric practice, because the evaluation of pain can be very challenging in young children.(5) In contrast to opioids, local anesthetics can be administered safely, and in recent guidelines regional anaesthesia is accepted as the cornerstone of post-operative pain relief in the pediatric patients.(6) Although regional anaesthesia holds a good safety record overall, the global experience with pediatric regional anaesthesia is still quite low; even the most commonly performed procedure, caudal block, represents only 2.5% of all central neuroaxial blocks performed.(7,8) Determining the risk-benefit ratio is rather difficult for techniques that are relatively rarely performed. Wound infiltration can produce reliable analgesia for superficial skin surgery. Infiltration itself is extensively used by pediatricians, surgeons and emergency physicians for skin laceration repair or minor superficial surgery.(5) Several studies have compared the local anesthesia so far, including: ilio-inguinal and iliohypogastric nerve block plus subcutaneous injection by the surgeon against the caudal anesthesia.(9,10) But to our knowledge, there is still no study comparing the local wound infiltration by itself and caudal anesthesia for postoperative analgesia as regard their effect on wound infection and healing.
AIM OF THE WORK The aim of the present study is to assess effect of local wound infiltration in comparison with caudal block by bupivacaine 0.25% after inguinal herniotomy in pediatrics on: Wound infection and healing (primary outcome) and postoperative analgesia (secondary outcome).
PATIENTS After approval of ethical committee faculty of medicine, University of Alexandria, a prospective interventional concealed randomized clinical study which will include 50 children (calculated by department of community medicine) aged 2 months-1 year admitted to the Pediatrics Surgery Department of Alexandria University Hospitals for elective inguinal herniotomy surgery, and an informed written consent will be taken from the parents or the guardians.
All patients will be selected to be grade I or II according to American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification
The patients will be classified randomly into two groups using closed envelope technique, 25 patients each:
Group L: 25 patients will receive 1mg/kg bupivacaine 0.25% (diluted as 1ml bupivacaine + 1ml normal saline) by local infiltration in the wound before closure of the skin and subcutaneous.
Group C: 25 patients will receive caudal block with 1mg/kg bupivacaine 0.25%.
Exclusion criteria included:
- History of developmental delay or mental retardation.
- Diabetes mellitus type I.
- Known allergy or contraindication to any local anesthetics.
- Known congenital anomaly in the inguinal region.
- Any patient who will develop any infections postoperatively (respiratory infection, urinary infection) other than wound infection will be excluded.
METHODS
All patients will be subjected to the following:
- Pre-operative visit:
Each patient will be visited the day before surgery for the following:
- Proper evaluation by history taking from parents, clinical examination and laboratory investigations.
- Explanation of the technique of postoperative analgesia to the parents and explain to them that the wound will be observed postoperatively for signs of inflammation and infection.
- Pre-medication:
Paracetamol suppository 40mg/kg will be given half an hour before surgery.
- Anaesthesia:
- All patients will be monitored for:
- Heart rate (beats/minute) through continuous ECG tracing (lead II).
- Non-invasive arterial blood pressure (mmHg).
- Arterial oxygen saturation using pulse oximetry (%).
- Induction of general anaesthesia will be achieved with 8% sevoflurane in 100% oxygen.
- After securing an IV line with cannula, all patients will receive fentanyl 1mcg /kg.
- Laryngeal mask air way of proper size will be inserted under adequate depth of anaesthesia.
- Anaesthesia will be maintained with sevoflurane with concentration maintaining adequate depth of anaesthesia.
- At the end of procedure and before application of stitches, bupivacaine 0.25% will be infiltrated in the skin and subcutaneous layer in group L, and caudal block will be performed in group C; at the end of surgery inhalational anaesthetics will be stopped; laryngeal mask will be removed when patient is fully conscious.
- Postoperative pain will be assessed using the Faces Legs Activity Cry Consolability tool (FLACC, 0- 10) at 15 min, 1, and 3 h after operation.(11) Table (I): FLACC scale (Behavioral observation pain rating scale) Categories Scoring 0 1 2 Face No particular expression or smile; disinterested Occasional grimace or frown, withdrawn Frequent to constant frown, clenched jaw, quivering chin Legs No position or relaxed Uneasy, restless, tense Kicking, or legs drawn up Activity Lying quietly, normal position, moves easily Squirming, shifting back and forth, tense Arched, rigid, or jerking Cry No crying (awake or asleep) Moans or whimpers, occasional complaint Crying steadily, screams or sobs, frequent complaints Consolability Content, relaxed Reassured by occasional touching, hugging, or talking to. Distractible Difficult to console or comfort Each of the five categories (F) face; (L) legs; (A) Activity; (C) Cry; (C) Consolability is scored from 0-2, which results in a total score between 0 and 10.
- A child with a score of more than 4 on FLACC will receive intravenous acetaminophen 15mg/kg.
- The incision will then be monitored for signs of infection (Redness, Hotness, Swelling, Discharge, or Separation/Breakdown of deep tissues).
- Data regarding the incision will be obtained on day 7 postoperative or with sutures removal or any time before this if he/she develops any of wound inflammation signs earlier.
- Measurements:
- Postoperative vital signs/hour for 4 hours.
- Faces Legs Activity Cry Consolability tool (FLACC, 0- 10) at 15 min, 1, and 3 h after operation.(11)
- Timing of first postoperative complaint of pain, first requirement for postoperative analgesia and total consumption of analgesia
- Laboratory measurements: white blood cells count at day 0 and day 7 postoperative.
- Culture: with first dressing change at day 7 postoperative from the wounds with discharge (suspected infected wounds).
- Wound infection and healing scale: using Southampton scoring system,(12) which classifies wounds according to healing into 6 grades (0, I, II, III, IV, V).
Table (II): Southampton wound scoring system Southampton wound scoring system Grade Appearance 0 Normal healing I Normal healing with bruising or mild erythema A Some bruising B Considerable bruising C Mild erythema II Erythema +other signs of inflammation A At one point B Around the sutures C Along the wound D Around the wound III Clear or heamoserous discharge A At one pint only (<2cm) B Along the wound (>2cm) C Large volume D Prolonged (3days) Major complication IV pus A At one point only (<2cm) B Along the wound (>2cm) V: deep or severe wound infection with or without tissue break down; hematoma requiring aspiration.
ETHICS OF RESEARCH
Research on human or human products:
Prospective study: Informed consent will be taken from patients. In case of incompetent patients the informed consent will be taken from the guardians.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Triple blind (participant, care provider, outcomes assessor)
- Number of arms
- 2
- Model description
- The patients will be classified randomly into two groups using closed envelope technique, 25 patients each: Group L: 25 patients will receive 1mg/kg bupivacaine 0.25% (diluted as 1ml bupivacaine + 1ml normal saline) by local infiltration in the wound before closure of the skin and subcutaneous. Group C: 25 patients will receive caudal block with 1mg/kg bupivacaine 0.25%.
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Caudal block | Active comparator | Procedure: Caudal block, Drug: BupivacaineCaudal block with 1mg/kg bupivacaine 0.25%. |
| Wound infiltration | Active comparator | Procedure: Wound infiltration, Drug: BupivacaineLocal wound infiltration with 1mg/kg bupivacaine 0.25%. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 2 to 12 months
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Child
Key inclusion criteria (2 listed)
- Children aged 2 months-1 year
- Admitted for elective inguinal herniotomy surgery.
Key exclusion criteria (5 listed)
- History of developmental delay or mental retardation.
- Diabetes mellitus type I.
- Known allergy or contraindication to any local anesthetics.
- Known congenital anomaly in the inguinal region.
- Any patient who will develop any infections postoperatively (respiratory infection, urinary infection) other than wound infection will be excluded.
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Caudal blockCaudal block/bupivacaine 0.25% | Procedure or surgery | Caudal block |
| Wound infiltrationLocal anesthetic wound infiltration/bupivacaine 0.25% | Procedure or surgery | Wound infiltration |
| Bupivacainebupivacaine | Drug | Caudal block, Wound infiltration |
Primary outcome
Wound healing will be assessed and will be given grades 0-5
Time frame: 7 days
Wound healing will be assessed and will be given grades 0-5
5 secondary outcomes
Pain score (Faces)
Time frame: one day.
Pain score (Legs)
Time frame: one day.
Pain score (Activity)
Time frame: one day.
Pain score (Cry)
Time frame: one day.
Pain score (Consolability)
Time frame: one day.
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 11 Dec 2018.
- BackgroundEldor J. The antibacterial and antifungal effects of bupivacaine wound analgesia. JNYSORA 2009; 14:1-14.
- Background: PubMed 18426354Johnson SM, Saint John BE, Dine AP. Local anesthetics as antimicrobial agents: a review. Surg Infect (Larchmt). 2008 Apr;9(2):205-13. doi: 10.1089/sur.2007.036.
- BackgroundAnaethesia UK. Pharmacology of regional anaesthesia. Anaethesia UK [Last Updated: 19 Nov, 2009]. Available from: http://www.frca.co.uk/article.aspx?articleid=100816. [Accessed on: 16 May, 2016].
- Background: PubMed 16682915Silvani P, Camporesi A, Agostino MR, Salvo I. Caudal anesthesia in pediatrics: an update. Minerva Anestesiol. 2006 Jun;72(6):453-9.
- Background: PubMed 22817132Association of Paediatric Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland. Good practice in postoperative and procedural pain management, 2nd edition. Paediatr Anaesth. 2012 Jul;22 Suppl 1:1-79. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-9592.2012.03838.x. No abstract available.
- Background: PubMed 3354802Fell D, Derrington MC, Taylor E, Wandless JG. Paediatric postoperative analgesia. A comparison between caudal block and wound infiltration of local anaesthetic. Anaesthesia. 1988 Feb;43(2):107-10.
- Background: PubMed 22595705Lao OB, Fitzgibbons RJ Jr, Cusick RA. Pediatric inguinal hernias, hydroceles, and undescended testicles. Surg Clin North Am. 2012 Jun;92(3):487-504, vii. doi: 10.1016/j.suc.2012.03.017.
- Background: PubMed 25693139Johr M. Regional anaesthesia in neonates, infants and children: an educational review. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2015 May;32(5):289-97. doi: 10.1097/EJA.0000000000000239.
- Background: PubMed 22696610Polaner DM, Taenzer AH, Walker BJ, Bosenberg A, Krane EJ, Suresh S, Wolf C, Martin LD. Pediatric Regional Anesthesia Network (PRAN): a multi-institutional study of the use and incidence of complications of pediatric regional anesthesia. Anesth Analg. 2012 Dec;115(6):1353-64. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0b013e31825d9f4b. Epub 2012 Jun 13.
- Background: PubMed 19139027Cook TM, Counsell D, Wildsmith JA; Royal College of Anaesthetists Third National Audit Project. Major complications of central neuraxial block: report on the Third National Audit Project of the Royal College of Anaesthetists. Br J Anaesth. 2009 Feb;102(2):179-90. doi: 10.1093/bja/aen360. Epub 2009 Jan 12.
- Background: PubMed 17596217Crellin D, Sullivan TP, Babl FE, O'Sullivan R, Hutchinson A. Analysis of the validation of existing behavioral pain and distress scales for use in the procedural setting. Paediatr Anaesth. 2007 Aug;17(8):720-33. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-9592.2007.02218.x.
- Background: PubMed 1547415Bailey IS, Karran SE, Toyn K, Brough P, Ranaboldo C, Karran SJ. Community surveillance of complications after hernia surgery. BMJ. 1992 Feb 22;304(6825):469-71. doi: 10.1136/bmj.304.6825.469.
Related trials for Healing Surgical Wounds
Recruiting
Safety and Efficacy of NTP in Thyroid Surgery: Pilot Study on Morbidity Prevention and Adjuvant Oncological Control
Thyroid Diseases, Wound Healing
Recruiting
Silk Bioprotein as a Wound Dressing for Double-Incision Mastectomy
Wound Healing
Not yet recruitingObservational study
Arterial Stiffness During Negative Pressure Wound Therapy for Abdominal Wall Wounds
Postoperative Abdominal Wall Wound Complications, Surgical Wound Infection
Not yet recruiting
Personalized Weight-Bearing With Smart Crutch Tips After Surgery for Tibial Plateau Fractures
Tibial Plateau Fracture
Not yet recruitingPhase 4
Reducing Wound Complications in Breast Surgery Using hACM
Surgical Wound Healing, Scar Tissue
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Mohammad Hazem I Ahmad Sabry, MB,ChB MD principal investigator
Alexandria Univeristy
Ramadan A Ammar, MB,ChB MD study director
Alexandria Univeristy
Rana Bakr, MB,ChB principal investigator
Alexandria Univeristy
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Caudal block, Wound infiltration and Bupivacaine in people with Healing Surgical Wounds, run by University of Alexandria at 1 site in Egypt.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 2 inclusion and 5 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 11 Dec 2018. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Egypt. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Wound healing will be assessed and will be given grades 0-5 (time frame: 7 days). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT03563625, which also lists 12 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 11 Dec 2018.