Clinical hypnosis: implications in anaesthesia and perioperative care.

A randomised trial published in the British Journal of Anaesthesia describes hypnosis compared with general anaesthesia in 60 children undergoing superficial surgery. We describe a definition of clinical hypnosis; the goals and conduct of hypnotic communication; and its potential as both an adjunct and, in suitable cases, alternative to traditional pharmacological anaesthesia.

Consent for spine surgery: an observational study.

BACKGROUND: The tension between the ideal of informed consent and the reality of the process is under-investigated in spine surgery. Guidelines around consent imply a logical, plain-speaking process with a clear endpoint, agreement and signature yet surgeons' surveys and patient interviews suggest that surgeons' explanation is anecdotally variable and patient understanding remains poor. To obtain a more authentic reflection of practice, spine surgeons obtaining 'informed consent' for non-instrumented spine surgery were studied via video recording and risk/benefit discussions were analysed. METHODS: A prospective observational study was conducted at a single neurosurgical institution. Twelve video recordings involving six surgeons obtaining an informed consent for non-instrumented spine surgery were transcribed verbatim and blindly analysed using descriptive quantification and linguistic ethnography. RESULTS: Ten (83%) consultations discussed surgical benefit but less than half (41%) quantified the likelihood of benefit from surgery. The most discussed risks were nerve damage or paralysis (92%), bleeding (92%), infection (92%), cerebrospinal fluid leak (83%) and bowel and bladder dysfunction (75%). Surgeons commonly used a quantitative statement of risk (58%) but only half of the risks were explained in words patients were likely to understand. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights inconsistencies in the way spine surgeons explain risks and obtain informed consent for 'simple' spine procedures in a real-world setting. There are wide disparities in the provision of informed consent, which may be encountered in other surgical fields. Direct observation and qualitative analysis can provide insights into the limitations of current informed consent practice and help guide future practice.

Perioperative transversus abdominis plane (TAP) blocks for analgesia after abdominal surgery.

At April 2020, this review has been withdrawn. It is correct at the date of publication, and previous versions can be accessed in the 'Other versions' tab on the Cochrane Library. We are aware of new studies to potentially change the conclusions, however the update did not meet the timelines and expectations of Cochrane and the PaPaS review group.

Prevalence and associations of psychological distress in Australian junior medical officers.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: To determine the prevalence of psychological distress in Australian junior medical officers (JMO) and investigate the determinants associated with psychological distress over a 3-year (2014-2016) period. METHODS: JMO were surveyed using the 2014-2016 JMO Census (n = 220, 399 and 466 each year; response rate approximately 15%). Levels of psychological distress were assessed using the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10). A K10 ≥ 25 was chosen to indicate high psychological distress, and this determinant was compared to various demographic and work-related factors. RESULTS: Australian JMO experience a high level of psychological distress (mean: 18.1, median 16.0). There were no differences in demographical variables, such as age, gender, marital status, dependants and between postgraduate years 1 and 2. Increasing hours worked per week was associated with a higher K10, with every hour worked increasing odds by 3%. Attitudinal items, including feeling unwilling to study medicine again, feeling poorly trained and experiences of bullying, were related to high psychological distress. Coping strategies like exercise and spending time with friends correlated positively with lower distress, while time off work, frequent alcohol use, smoking and drug use were associated with increased distress levels. Of those with a high K10, 54.5% indicated that they did not use any form of professional support; 17.83% expressed that given their time again, they would not choose to study medicine. CONCLUSION: A focused approach to JMO support and education regarding significant risk factors identified is likely to assist health policies that aim to improve the mental well-being of Australian JMO.

Non-pharmacological interventions for assisting the induction of anaesthesia in children.

BACKGROUND: Induction of general anaesthesia can be distressing for children. Non-pharmacological methods for reducing anxiety and improving co-operation may avoid the adverse effects of preoperative sedation. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of non-pharmacological interventions in assisting induction of anaesthesia in children by reducing their anxiety, distress or increasing their co-operation. SEARCH METHODS: In this updated review we searched CENTRAL (the Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 12) and searched the following databases from inception to 15 January 2013: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and Web of Science. We reran the search in August 2014. We will deal with the single study found to be of interest when we next update the review. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials of a non-pharmacological intervention implemented on the day of surgery or anaesthesia. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias in trials. MAIN RESULTS: We included 28 trials (2681 children) investigating 17 interventions of interest; all trials were conducted in high-income countries. Overall we judged the trials to be at high risk of bias. Except for parental acupuncture (graded low), all other GRADE assessments of the primary outcomes of comparisons were very low, indicating a high degree of uncertainty about the overall findings. Parental presence: In five trials (557 children), parental presence at induction of anaesthesia did not reduce child anxiety compared with not having a parent present (standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.14 to 0.20). In a further three trials (267 children) where we were unable to pool results, we found no clear differences in child anxiety, whether a parent was present or not. In a single trial, child anxiety showed no significant difference whether one or two parents were present, although parental anxiety was significantly reduced when both parents were present at the induction. Parental presence was significantly less effective than sedative premedication in reducing children's anxiety at induction in three trials with 254 children (we could not pool results). Child interventions (passive): When a video of the child's choice was played during induction, children were significantly less anxious than controls (median difference modified Yale Preoperative Anxiety Scale (mYPAS) 31.2, 95% CI 27.1 to 33.3) in a trial of 91 children. In another trial of 120 children, co-operation at induction did not differ significantly when a video fairytale was played before induction. Children exposed to low sensory stimulation were significantly less anxious than control children on introduction of the anaesthesia mask and more likely to be co-operative during induction in one trial of 70 children. Music therapy did not show a significant effect on children's anxiety in another trial of 51 children. Child interventions (mask introduction): We found no significant differences between a mask exposure intervention and control in a single trial of 103 children for child anxiety (risk ratio (RR) 0.59, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.11) although children did demonstrate significantly better co-operation in the mask exposure group (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.51). Child interventions (interactive): In a three-arm trial of 168 children, preparation with interactive computer packages (in addition to parental presence) was more effective than verbal preparation, although differences between computer and cartoon preparation were not significant, and neither was cartoon preparation when compared with verbal preparation. Children given video games before induction were significantly less anxious at induction than those in the control group (mYPAS mean difference (MD) -9.80, 95% CI -19.42 to -0.18) and also when compared with children who were sedated with midazolam (mYPAS MD -12.20, 95% CI -21.82 to -2.58) in a trial of 112 children. When compared with parental presence only, clowns or clown doctors significantly lessened children's anxiety in the operating/induction room (mYPAS MD -24.41, 95% CI -38.43 to -10.48; random-effects, I² 75%) in three trials with a total of 133 children. However, we saw no significant differences in child anxiety in the operating room between clowns/clown doctors and sedative premedication (mYPAS MD -9.67, 95% CI -21.14 to 1.80, random-effects, I² 66%; 2 trials of 93 children). In a trial of hypnotherapy versus sedative premedication in 50 children, there were no significant differences in children's anxiety at induction (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.04). Parental interventions: Children of parents having acupuncture compared with parental sham acupuncture were less anxious during induction (mYPAS MD -17, 95% CI -30.51 to -3.49) and were more co-operative (RR 1.59, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.53) in a single trial of 67 children. Two trials with 191 parents assessed the effects of parental video viewing but did not report any of the review's prespecified primary outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review shows that the presence of parents during induction of general anaesthesia does not diminish their child's anxiety. Potentially promising non-pharmacological interventions such as parental acupuncture; clowns/clown doctors; playing videos of the child's choice during induction; low sensory stimulation; and hand-held video games need further investigation in larger studies.

Effects of sevoflurane versus other general anaesthesia on emergence agitation in children.

BACKGROUND: Sevoflurane is an inhaled volatile anaesthetic that is widely used in paediatric anaesthetic practice. Since its introduction, postoperative behavioural disturbance known as emergence agitation (EA) or emergence delirium (ED) has been recognized as a problem that may occur during recovery from sevoflurane anaesthesia. For the purpose of this systematic review, EA has been used to describe this clinical entity. A child with EA may be restless, may cause self-injury or may disrupt the dressing, surgical site or indwelling devices, leading to the potential for parents to be dissatisfied with their child's anaesthetic. To prevent such outcomes, the child may require pharmacological or physical restraint. Sevoflurane may be a major contributing factor in the development of EA. Therefore, an evidence-based understanding of the risk/benefit profile regarding sevoflurane compared with other general anaesthetic agents and adjuncts would facilitate its rational and optimal use. OBJECTIVES: To compare sevoflurane with other general anaesthetic (GA) agents, with or without pharmacological or non-pharmacological adjuncts, with regard to risk of EA in children during emergence from anaesthesia. The primary outcome was risk of EA; secondary outcome was agitation score. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases from the date of inception to 19 January 2013: CENTRAL, Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (EBSCOhost), Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews (EBMR) and the Web of Science, as well as the reference lists of other relevant articles and online trial registers. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomized (or quasi-randomized) controlled trials investigating children < 18 years of age presenting for general anaesthesia with or without surgical intervention. We included any study in which a sevoflurane anaesthetic was compared with any other GA, and any study in which researchers investigated adjuncts (pharmacological or non-pharmacological) to sevoflurane anaesthesia compared with no adjunct or placebo. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently searched the databases, decided on inclusion eligibility of publications, ascertained study quality and extracted data. They then resolved differences between their results by discussion. Data were entered into RevMan 5.2 for analyses and presentation. Comparisons of the risk of EA were presented as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Sevoflurane is treated as the control anaesthesia in this review. Sensitivity analyses were performed as appropriate, to exclude studies with a high risk of bias and to investigate heterogeneity. MAIN RESULTS: We included 158 studies involving 14,045 children. Interventions to prevent EA fell into two broad groups. First, alternative GA compared with sevoflurane anaesthesia (69 studies), and second, use of an adjunct with sevoflurane anaesthesia versus sevoflurane without an adjunct (100 studies). The overall risk of bias in included studies was low. The overall Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation Working Group (GRADE) assessment of the quality of the evidence was moderate to high. A wide range of EA scales were used, as were different levels of cutoff, to determine the presence or absence of EA. Some studies involved children receiving potentially inadequate or no analgesia intraoperatively during painful procedures.Halothane (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.63, 3534 participants, high quality of evidence) and propofol anaesthesia were associated with a lower risk of EA than sevoflurane anaesthesia. Propofol was effective when used throughout anaesthesia (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.51, 1098 participants, high quality of evidence) and when used only during the maintenance phase of anaesthesia after sevoflurane induction (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.76, 738 participants, high quality of evidence). No clear evidence was found of an effect on risk of EA of desflurane (RR 1.46, 95% CI 0.92 to 2.31, 408 participants, moderate quality of evidence) or isoflurane (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.23, 379 participants, moderate quality of evidence) versus sevoflurane.Compared with no adjunct, effective adjuncts for reducing the risk of EA during sevoflurane anaesthesia included dexmedetomidine (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.47, 851 participants, high quality of evidence), clonidine (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.66, 739 participants, high quality of evidence), opioids, in particular fentanyl (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.50, 1247 participants, high quality of evidence) and a bolus of propofol (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.89, 394 participants, moderate quality of evidence), ketamine (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.69, 231 participants, moderate quality of evidence) or midazolam (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.81, 116 participants, moderate quality of evidence) at the end of anaesthesia. Midazolam oral premedication (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.12, 370 participants, moderate quality of evidence) and parental presence at emergence (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.60, 180 participants, moderate quality of evidence) did not reduce the risk of EA.One or more factors designated as high risk of bias were noted in less than 10% of the included studies. Sensitivity analyses of these studies showed no clinically relevant changes in the risk of EA. Heterogeneity was significant with respect to these comparisons: halothane; clonidine; fentanyl; midazolam premedication; propofol 1 mg/kg bolus at end; and ketamine 0.25 mg/kg bolus at end of anaesthesia. With investigation of heterogeneity, the only clinically relevant changes to findings were seen in the context of potential pain, namely, the setting of adenoidectomy/adenotonsillectomy (propofol bolus; midazolam premedication) and the absence of a regional block (clonidine). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Propofol, halothane, alpha-2 agonists (dexmedetomidine, clonidine), opioids (e.g. fentanyl) and ketamine reduce the risk of EA compared with sevoflurane anaesthesia, whereas no clear evidence shows an effect for desflurane, isoflurane, midazolam premedication and parental presence at emergence. Therefore anaesthetists can consider several effective strategies to reduce the risk of EA in their clinical practice. Future studies should ensure adequate analgesia in the control group, for which pain may be a contributing or confounding factor in the diagnosis of EA. Regardless of the EA scale used, it would be helpful for study authors to report the risk of EA, so that this might be included in future meta-analyses. Researchers should also consider combining effective interventions as a multi-modal approach to further reduce the risk of EA.

Clonidine premedication for postoperative analgesia in children.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative pain remains a significant problem following paediatric surgery. Premedication with a suitable agent may improve its management. Clonidine is an alpha-2 adrenergic agonist which has sedative, anxiolytic and analgesic properties. It may therefore be a useful premedication for reducing postoperative pain in children. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the evidence for the effectiveness of clonidine, when given as a premedication, in reducing postoperative pain in children less than 18 years of age. We also sought evidence of any clinically significant side effects. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library (Issue 12, 2012), Ovid MEDLINE (1966 to 21 December 2012) and Ovid EMBASE (1982 to 21 December 2012), as well as reference lists of other relevant articles and online trial registers. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomized (or quasi-randomized), controlled trials comparing clonidine premedication to placebo, a higher dose of clonidine, or another agent when used for surgical or other invasive procedures in children under the age of 18 years and where pain or a surrogate (principally the need for supplementary analgesia) was reported. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently performed the database search, decided on the inclusion eligibility of publications, ascertained study quality and extracted data. They then resolved any differences between their results by discussion. The data were entered into RevMan 5 for analyses and presentation. Sensitivity analyses were performed, as appropriate, to exclude studies with a high risk of bias. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 11 trials investigating a total of 742 children in treatment arms relevant to our study question. Risks of bias in the studies were mainly low or unclear, but two studies had aspects of their methodology that had a high risk of bias. Overall, the quality of the evidence from pooled studies was low or had unclear risk of bias. Four trials compared clonidine with a placebo or no treatment, six trials compared clonidine with midazolam, and one trial compared clonidine with fentanyl. There was substantial methodological heterogeneity between trials; the dose and route of clonidine administration varied as did the patient populations, the types of surgery and the outcomes measured. It was therefore difficult to combine the outcomes of some trials for meta-analysis.When clonidine was compared to placebo, pooling studies of low or unclear risk of bias, the need for additional analgesia was reduced when clonidine premedication was given orally at 4 µg/kg (risk ratio (RR) 0.24, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.11 to 0.51). Only one small trial (15 patients per arm) compared clonidine to midazolam for the same outcome; this also found a reduction in the need for additional postoperative analgesia (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.71) when clonidine premedication was given orally at 2 or 4 µg/kg compared to oral midazolam at 0.5 mg/kg. A trial comparing oral clonidine at 4 µg/kg with intravenous fentanyl at 3 µg/kg found no statistically significant difference in the need for rescue analgesia (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.42). When clonidine 4 µg/kg was compared to clonidine 2 µg/kg, there was a statistically significant difference in the number of patients requiring additional analgesia, in favour of the higher dose, as reported by a single, higher-quality trial (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.65).The effect of clonidine on pain scores was hard to interpret due to differences in study methodology, the doses and route of drug administration, and the pain scale used. However, when given at a dose of 4 µg/kg, clonidine may have reduced analgesia requirements after surgery. There were no significant side effects of clonidine that were reported such as severe hypotension, bradycardia, or excessive sedation requiring intervention. However, several studies used atropine prophylactically with the aim of preventing such adverse effects. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There were only 11 relevant trials studying 742 children having surgery where premedication with clonidine was compared to placebo or other drug treatment. Despite heterogeneity between trials, clonidine premedication in an adequate dosage (4 µg/kg) was likely to have a beneficial effect on postoperative pain in children. Side effects were minimal, but some of the studies used atropine prophylactically with the intention of preventing bradycardia and hypotension. Further research is required to determine under what conditions clonidine premedication is most effective in providing postoperative pain relief in children.

Consent for pediatric anesthesia: an observational study.

BACKGROUND: Informed consent prior to anesthesia is an important part of the pediatric pre-anesthetic consultation. This study aimed to observe and identify the number and nature of the anesthesia risks considered and communicated to parents/guardians and children during the pediatric informed consent process on the day of elective surgery. METHODS: A convenience sample of anesthetists had their pre-anesthesia consultations voice recorded, prior to elective surgery, during a 4-month period at the largest tertiary referral centre for pediatric care in South Australia. A data collection form was used to note baseline demographic data, and voice recording transcripts were independently documented by two researchers and subsequently compared for accuracy regarding the number and nature of risks discussed. RESULTS: Of the 96 voice recordings, 91 (92%) were suitable for the analysis. The five most commonly discussed risks were as follows: nausea and vomiting (36%); sore throat (35%); allergy (29%); hypoxia (25%); and emergence delirium (19%). Twenty-seven pre-anesthetic consultations (30%) were found to have had no discussion of anesthetic risk at all while a further 23 consultations (26%) incorporated general statements inferring that anesthesia carried risks, but with no elaboration about their nature, ramifications or incidence. The median number of risks (IQR) specifically mentioned per consultation was higher, 3 (1) vs 1 (1), P < 0.05, when the consultation was performed by a trainee rather than a consultant anesthetist and when the patient had previous anesthesia experience odds ratio 0.34, 95% CI [0.13, 0.87], P = 0.025. CONCLUSIONS: The pediatric anesthesia risk discussion is very variable. Trainees tend to discuss more specific risks than consultants and a patient's previous experience of anesthesia was associated with a more limited discussion of anesthesia risk.

Perioperative transversus abdominis plane (TAP) blocks for analgesia after abdominal surgery.

BACKGROUND: The transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block is a peripheral nerve block which anaesthetises the abdominal wall. The increasing use of TAP block, as a form of pain relief after abdominal surgery warrants evaluation of its effectiveness as an adjunctive technique to routine care and, when compared with other analgesic techniques. OBJECTIVES: To assess effects of TAP blocks (and variants) on postoperative analgesia requirements after abdominal surgery. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched specialised registers of Cochrane Anaesthesia and Cochrane Pain, Palliative and Supportive Care Review Groups, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL to June 2010. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing TAP block or rectus sheath block with: no TAP or rectus sheath block; placebo; systemic, epidural or any other analgesia. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors assessed study eligibility and risk of bias, and extracted data. MAIN RESULTS: We included eight studies (358 participants), five assessing TAP blocks, three assessing rectus sheath blocks; with moderate risk of bias overall. All studies had a background of general anaesthesia in both arms in most cases.Compared with no TAP block or saline placebo, TAP block resulted in significantly less postoperative requirement for morphine at 24 hours (mean difference (MD) -21.95 mg, 95% confidence interval (CI) -37.91 to 5.96; five studies, 236 participants) and 48 hours (MD -28.50, 95% CI -38.92 to -18.08; one study of 50 participants) but not at two hours (all random-effects analyses). Pain at rest was significantly reduced in two studies, but not a third.Only one of three included studies of rectus sheath blocks found a reduction in postoperative analgesic requirements in participants receiving blocks. One study, assessing number of participants who were pain-free after their surgery, found more participants who received a rectus sheath block to be pain-free for up to 10 hours postoperatively. As with TAP blocks, rectus sheath blocks made no apparent impact on nausea and vomiting or sedation scores. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: No studies have compared TAP block with other analgesics such as epidural analgesia or local anaesthetic infiltration into the abdominal wound. There is only limited evidence to suggest use of perioperative TAP block reduces opioid consumption and pain scores after abdominal surgery when compared with no intervention or placebo. There is no apparent reduction in postoperative nausea and vomiting or sedation from the small numbers of studies to date. Many relevant studies are currently underway or awaiting publication.

Non-pharmacological interventions for assisting the induction of anaesthesia in children.

BACKGROUND: Induction of general anaesthesia can be distressing for children. Non-pharmacological methods for reducing anxiety and improving co-operation may avoid the adverse effects of preoperative sedation. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of non-pharmacological interventions in assisting induction of anaesthesia in children by reducing their anxiety, distress or increasing their co-operation. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2009, Issue 1). We searched the following databases from inception to 14th December 2008: MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, DISSERTATION ABSTRACTS, Web of Science and EMBASE. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials of a non-pharmacological intervention implemented on the day of surgery or anaesthesia. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias in trials. MAIN RESULTS: We included 17 trials, all from developed countries, involving 1796 children, their parents or both. Eight trials assessed parental presence. None showed significant differences in anxiety or co-operation of children during induction, except for one where parental presence was significantly less effective than midazolam in reducing children's anxiety at induction. Six trials assessed interventions for children. Preparation with a computer package improved co-operation compared with parental presence (one trial). Children playing hand-held video games before induction were significantly less anxious than controls or premedicated children (one trial). Compared with controls, clown doctors reduced anxiety in children (modified Yale Preoperative Anxiety Scale (mYPAS): mean difference (MD) 30.75 95% CI 15.14 to 46.36; one trial). In children undergoing hypnosis, there was a nonsignificant trend towards reduced anxiety during induction (mYPAS < 24: risk ratio (RR) 0.59 95% CI 0.33 to 1.04 - 39% versus 68%: one trial) compared with midazolam. A low sensory environment improved children's co-operation at induction (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.95; one trial) and no effect on children's anxiety was found for music therapy (one trial).Parental interventions were assessed in three trials. Children of parents having acupuncture compared with parental sham-acupuncture were less anxious during induction (mYPAS MD 17, 95% CI 3.49 to 30.51) and more children were co-operative (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.4 to 0.99). Parental anxiety was also significantly reduced in this trial. In two trials, a video viewed preoperatively did not show effects on child or parental outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review shows that the presence of parents during induction of general anaesthesia does not reduce their child's anxiety. Promising non-pharmacological interventions such as parental acupuncture; clown doctors; hypnotherapy; low sensory stimulation; and hand-held video games needs to be investigated further.

Caudal epidural block versus other methods of postoperative pain relief for circumcision in boys.

BACKGROUND: Techniques to minimize the postoperative discomfort of penile surgery, such as circumcision, include caudal block; penile block; systemic opioids and topical local anaesthetic cream, emulsion or gel. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effects of caudal epidural analgesia with other forms of postoperative analgesia following circumcision in boys. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2008, Issue 1), MEDLINE (to April 2008) and EMBASE (to April 2008). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized and quasi-randomized trials of postoperative analgesia by caudal epidural block compared with non-caudal analgesia in boys, aged between 28 days and 16 years, having elective surgery for circumcision. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently carried out assessment of study eligibility, data extraction and assessment of the risk of bias in included studies. MAIN RESULTS: We included 10 trials involving 721 boys. No difference was seen between caudal and parenteral analgesia in the need for rescue or other analgesia (relative risk (RR) 0.41, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.12 to 1.43; 4 trials, 235 boys; random-effects model) or on the incidence of nausea and vomiting (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.05; 4 trials, 235 boys). No difference in the need for rescue or other analgesia was seen for caudal compared with dorsal nerve penile block (DNPB) (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.64 to 2.44; 4 trials, 336 boys; random-effects model). No differences were seen between caudal block and DNPB in the incidence of nausea and vomiting (RR 1.88, 95% CI 0.70 to 5.04; 4 trials, 334 boys; random effects model) or individual complications except for motor block (RR 17.00, 95% CI 1.01 to 286.82; 1 trial, 100 boys) and motor or leg weakness (RR 10.67, 95% CI 1.32 to 86.09; 2 trials, 107 boys). These were significantly more common in the caudal block groups than with DNPB. No differences were seen between caudal and rectal or intravenous analgesia in the need for rescue analgesia or any other outcomes (2 trials, 162 boys). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Differences in the need for rescue or other analgesia could not be detected between caudal, parenteral and penile block methods. In day-case surgery, penile block may be preferable to caudal block in children old enough to walk due to the possibility of temporary leg weakness after caudal block. Evidence from trials is limited by small numbers and poor methodology. There is a need for properly designed trials comparing caudal epidural block with other methods such as morphine, simple analgesics and topical local anaesthetic creams, emulsions or gels.