skip to main content
Language:
Search Limited to: Search Limited to: Resource type Show Results with: Show Results with: Search type Index

Clonidine and Morphine as Adjuvants for Caudal Anaesthesia in Children: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials

Turkish journal of anaesthesiology and reanimation, 2020-08, Vol.48 (4), p.265-272 [Peer Reviewed Journal]

2020. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the associated terms available at https://turkjanaesthesiolreanim.org/en/aims-and-scope-1027 ;Copyright 2020 by Turkish Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Society 2020 ;ISSN: 2667-6370 ;ISSN: 2667-677X ;EISSN: 2667-6370 ;DOI: 10.5152/TJAR.2020.29863 ;PMID: 32864640

Full text available

Citations Cited by
  • Title:
    Clonidine and Morphine as Adjuvants for Caudal Anaesthesia in Children: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials
  • Author: Goyal, Shilpa ; Sharma, Ankur ; Goswami, Devalina ; Kothari, Nikhil ; Goyal, Amit ; Vyas, Varuna ; Kirubakaran, Richard ; Sahu, Ranjit ; Singh, Surjit
  • Subjects: Analgesics ; Anesthesia ; Morphine ; Pain ; Systematic Review
  • Is Part Of: Turkish journal of anaesthesiology and reanimation, 2020-08, Vol.48 (4), p.265-272
  • Description: Objective: The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to compare the outcomes of morphine vs. clonidine use as adjuvants in caudal anaesthesia. We are specifically focused on analgesic and side effect profiles. Methods: We searched databases and trial registration sites and include here randomised controlled trials that compare the analgesic effects of caudal clonidine vs. morphine as adjuvants on postoperative pain. The risk ratio for evaluating pain scores, the need for rescue analgesia and all adverse effects were assessed. The i2 statistic was used to assess heterogeneity. We also assessed risk of bias with Cochrane’s Collaboration tool. The quality of evidence was assessed with Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. Results: Four randomised controlled trials (including 166 patients) that evaluated the use of clonidine vs. morphine as adjuvants in caudal block were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. The pooled estimate for postoperative analgesia revealed no statistically significant differences between the clonidine group compared to morphine group (MD=2.90; 95% CI 4.05 to 9.85; i2 93%). Significantly less postoperative nausea and vomiting were reported among the patients that received clonidine vs. those that were treated with morphine (RR 0.57, 95% CI −0.36 to −0.90, i2 26%). There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in assessments that included urinary retention, pain scores or need for rescue analgesia at 24 hours. Conclusion: Clonidine is just as effective as morphine when used an adjuvant to local anaesthetic for caudal block, and has a more desirable side effect profile, particularly with respect to postoperative nausea and vomiting.
  • Publisher: Istanbul: Aves Yayincilik Ltd. STI
  • Language: English
  • Identifier: ISSN: 2667-6370
    ISSN: 2667-677X
    EISSN: 2667-6370
    DOI: 10.5152/TJAR.2020.29863
    PMID: 32864640
  • Source: Open Access: PubMed Central
    AUTh Library subscriptions: ProQuest Central
Back to results list
INSPIRE LIBRARY - TON DUC THANG UNIVERSITY (84-028) 37 755 057 Feedback
19 Nguyen Huu Tho St. Dist.7, HCM thuvien@tdtu.edu.vn

Copyright © 2017 INSPIRE LIBRARY - TON DUC THANG UNIVERSITY

Searching Remote Databases, Please Wait