Irish journal of medical science · 2026
A service evaluation of regional anaesthesia utilisation in an Irish paediatric tertiary referral centre.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
O'Loughlin Christopher, Coleman Eamonn, Leeson Hilary, Booley Ariij
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Paediatric regional anaesthesia (RA) is a safe and effective modality for peri-operative pain management, associated with improved outcomes and reduced opioid use. However, utilisation remains variable, and defining appropriate benchmarks is challenging.
METHODS: We conducted a 28-day retrospective audit of RA practice in a tertiary paediatric centre. All anaesthesiologist-performed regional blocks were recorded. Surgical cases not typically amenable to RA were excluded. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients receiving RA, with secondary analysis excluding unsuitable procedures.
RESULTS: A total of 491 patients underwent surgery, of whom 94 (19.1%) received RA, increasing to 20.8% following case exclusion. A total of 117 blocks were performed, comprising 86 peripheral (73.5%) and 31 central (26.5%) blocks. Peripheral techniques included 42 lower limb (35.9%), 30 truncal/craniofacial (25.6%), and 14 upper limb (12.0%) blocks. Central blocks included 15 caudal (12.8%), 10 epidural (8.5%), and 6 paravertebral (5.2%) blocks.
CONCLUSION: RA utilisation in our institution is consistent with European data. These findings establish a local benchmark and support ongoing audit and quality improvement in paediatric anaesthesia practice.
METHODS: We conducted a 28-day retrospective audit of RA practice in a tertiary paediatric centre. All anaesthesiologist-performed regional blocks were recorded. Surgical cases not typically amenable to RA were excluded. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients receiving RA, with secondary analysis excluding unsuitable procedures.
RESULTS: A total of 491 patients underwent surgery, of whom 94 (19.1%) received RA, increasing to 20.8% following case exclusion. A total of 117 blocks were performed, comprising 86 peripheral (73.5%) and 31 central (26.5%) blocks. Peripheral techniques included 42 lower limb (35.9%), 30 truncal/craniofacial (25.6%), and 14 upper limb (12.0%) blocks. Central blocks included 15 caudal (12.8%), 10 epidural (8.5%), and 6 paravertebral (5.2%) blocks.
CONCLUSION: RA utilisation in our institution is consistent with European data. These findings establish a local benchmark and support ongoing audit and quality improvement in paediatric anaesthesia practice.