RESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: To compare the time interval of the procedure, possible complications, post-operative pain levels, additional analgesics, and nurse satisfaction in ultrasonography-guided and standard caudal block applications. METHODS: This retrospective study was conducted in Celal Bayar University Hospital, Manisa, Turkey, between January and December 2014, included 78 pediatric patients. Caudal block was applied to 2 different groups; one with ultrasound guide, and the other using the standard method. RESULTS: The time interval of the procedure was significantly shorter in the standard application group compared with ultrasound-guided group (p=0.020). Wong-Baker FACES Pain Rating Scale values obtained at the 90th minute was statistically lower in the standard application group compared with ultrasound-guided group (p=0.035). No statistically significant difference was found on the other parameters between the 2 groups. The shorter time interval of the procedure at standard application group should not be considered as a distinctive mark by the pediatric anesthesiologists, because this time difference was as short as seconds. CONCLUSION: Ultrasound guidance for caudal block applications would neither increase nor decrease the success of the treatment. However, ultrasound guidance should be needed in cases where the detection of sacral anatomy is difficult, especially by palpations.