↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Regional (spinal, epidural, caudal) versus general anaesthesia in preterm infants undergoing inguinal herniorrhaphy in early infancy

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
49 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
248 Mendeley
Title
Regional (spinal, epidural, caudal) versus general anaesthesia in preterm infants undergoing inguinal herniorrhaphy in early infancy
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003669.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lisa J Jones, Paul D Craven, Anil Lakkundi, Jann P Foster, Nadia Badawi

Abstract

With improvements in neonatal intensive care, more preterm infants are surviving the neonatal period and presenting for surgery in early infancy. Inguinal hernia is the most common condition requiring early surgery, appearing in 38% of infants whose birth weight is between 751 grams and 1000 grams. Approximately 20% to 30% of otherwise healthy preterm infants having general anaesthesia for inguinal hernia surgery at a postmature age have at least one apnoeic episode within the postoperative period. Research studies have failed to adequately distinguish the effects of apnoeic episodes from other complications of extreme preterm gestation on the risk of brain injury, or to investigate the potential impact of postoperative apnoea upon longer term neurodevelopment. In addition to episodes of apnoea, there are concerns that anaesthetic and sedative agents may have a direct toxic effect on the developing brain of preterm infants even after reaching postmature age. It is proposed that regional anaesthesia may reduce the risk of postoperative apnoea, avoid the risk of anaesthetic-related neurotoxicity and improve neurodevelopmental outcomes in preterm infants requiring surgery for inguinal hernia at a postmature age. To determine if regional anaesthesia reduces postoperative apnoea, bradycardia, the use of assisted ventilation, and neurological impairment, in comparison to general anaesthesia, in preterm infants undergoing inguinal herniorrhaphy at a postmature age. The following databases and resources were searched: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library, 2015, Issue 2), MEDLINE (December 2002 to 25 February 2015), EMBASE (December 2002 to 25 February 2015), controlled-trials.com and clinicaltrials.gov, reference lists of published trials and abstracts published in Pediatric Research and Pediatric Anesthesia. Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials of regional (spinal, epidural, caudal) versus general anaesthesia, or combined regional and general anaesthesia, in former preterm infants undergoing inguinal herniorrhaphy in early infancy. At least two of three review authors (LJ, JF, AL) independently extracted data and performed analyses. Authors were contacted to obtain missing data. The methodological quality of each study was assessed according to the criteria of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group. Data were analysed using Review Manager 5. Meta-analyses were performed with calculation of risk ratios (RR) and risk difference (RD), along with their 95% confidence intervals (CI) where appropriate. Seven small trials comparing spinal with general anaesthesia in the repair of inguinal hernia were identified. Two trial reports are listed as 'Studies awaiting classification' due to insufficient information on which to base an eligibility assessment. There was no statistically significant difference in the risk of postoperative apnoea/bradycardia (typical RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.06; 4 studies, 138 infants), postoperative oxygen desaturation (typical RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.11; 2 studies, 48 infants), the use of postoperative analgesics (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.18; 1 study, 44 infants), or postoperative respiratory support (typical RR 0.09, 95% CI 0.01 to1.64; 3 studies, 98 infants) between infants receiving spinal or general anaesthesia. When infants who had received preoperative sedatives were excluded, the meta-analysis supported a reduction in the risk of postoperative apnoea in the spinal anaesthesia group (typical RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.82; 4 studies, 129 infants). Infants with no history of apnoea in the preoperative period and receiving spinal anaesthesia (including a subset of infants who had received sedatives) had a reduced risk of postoperative apnoea and this reached statistical significance (typical RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.81; 4 studies, 134 infants). Infants receiving spinal rather than general anaesthesia had a statistically significant increased risk of anaesthetic agent failure (typical RR 7.83, 95% CI 1.51 to 40.58; 3 studies, 92 infants). Infants randomised to receive spinal anaesthesia had an increased risk of anaesthetic placement failure of borderline statistical significance (typical RR 7.38, 95% CI 0.98 to 55.52; typical RD 0.15, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.27; 3 studies, 90 infants). There is moderate-quality evidence to suggest that the administration of spinal in preference to general anaesthesia without pre- or intraoperative sedative administration may reduce the risk of postoperative apnoea by up to 47% in preterm infants undergoing inguinal herniorrhaphy at a postmature age. For every four infants treated with spinal anaesthesia, one infant may be prevented from having an episode of postoperative apnoea (NNTB=4). In those infants without preoperative apnoea, there is low-quality evidence that spinal rather than general anaesthesia may reduce the risk of preoperative apnoea by up to 66%. There was no difference in the effect of spinal compared with general anaesthesia on the overall incidence of postoperative apnoea, bradycardia, oxygen desaturation, need for postoperative analgesics or respiratory support. Limitations on these results included varying use of sedative agents, or different anaesthetic agents, or combinations of these factors, in addition to trial quality aspects such as allocation concealment and inadequate blinding of intervention and outcome assessment. The meta-analyses may have inadequate power to detect a difference between groups for some outcomes, with estimates of effect based on a total population of fewer than 140 infants.The effect of newer, rapidly acting, quickly metabolised general anaesthetic agents on safety with regard to the risk of postoperative apnoea and neurotoxic exposure has not so far been established in randomised trials. There is potential for harm from postoperative apnoea and direct brain toxicity from general anaesthetic agents superimposed upon pre-existing altered brain development in infants born at very to extreme preterm gestation. This highlights the clear need for the examination of neurodevelopmental outcomes in the context of large randomised controlled trials of general, compared with spinal, anaesthesia, in former preterm infants undergoing surgery for inguinal hernia.There is a particular need to examine the impact of the choice of spinal over general anaesthesia on respiratory and neurological outcomes in high-risk infant subgroups with severe respiratory disease and previous brain injury.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 248 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Ethiopia 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 244 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 38 15%
Researcher 32 13%
Student > Bachelor 27 11%
Student > Postgraduate 22 9%
Other 21 8%
Other 54 22%
Unknown 54 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 120 48%
Nursing and Health Professions 23 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 3%
Social Sciences 7 3%
Psychology 6 2%
Other 20 8%
Unknown 64 26%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 February 2016.
All research outputs
#1,804,516
of 18,706,343 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,291
of 11,848 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,238
of 244,946 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#111
of 251 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,706,343 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,848 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 26.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 244,946 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 251 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its contemporaries.