Postoperative complications of hypospadias repair in patients receiving caudal block vs. non-caudal anesthesia: A meta-analysis

Authors

  • Patrick Pine Tanseco Institute of Urology, St. Luke's Medical Center
  • Harkanwal Randhawa McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
  • Michael Erlano Chua St. Luke's Medical Center-Institute of Urology
  • Udi Blankstein McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
  • Jin Kyu Kim Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
  • Melissa McGrath McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
  • Armando J. Lorenzo The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
  • Luis H. Braga McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.5688

Keywords:

Caudal block, Postoperative complications

Abstract

Introduction: We performed a meta-analysis of the current literature to assess the association of caudal block and postoperative complication rates following hypospadias repair.

Methods: A Systematic literature search was conducted on October 2017. Five reviewers independently screened, identified, and evaluated comparative studies assessing postoperative outcomes following hypospadias repair with and without caudal block. The incidence of post-surgical complications from each study was extracted for caudal block and control groups to generate the odds ratio (OR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). Effect estimates were pooled using inverse-variance method with random-effects model. Subgroup analyses were performed according to study type and hypospadias severity.

Results: Nine studies (2096patients) of low- to moderate-quality were included for meta-analysis. Overall pooled effect estimates demonstrated increased occurrence of postoperative complication rates among patients with caudal block (OR 2.32; 95% CI 1.29‒4.16). Subgroup analysis according to hypospadias severity revealed that a significant increased OR in complication rate was noted among proximal hypospadias (OR 3.55; 95% CI 1.80‒7.01), but not distal hypospadias (OR 1.31; 95% CI 0.59‒2.88).

Conclusions: Our meta-analysis of poor-quality evidence may have revealed a significant association between caudal block and postoperative complications following hypospadias repair. However, subgroup analysis demonstrated that hypospadias severity is important in determining complication rates, suggesting that confounding factors and selection bias may play a central role in characterizing the true effect of the anesthesia approach.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

Patrick Pine Tanseco, Institute of Urology, St. Luke's Medical Center

Institute of Urology

Michael Erlano Chua, St. Luke's Medical Center-Institute of Urology

Institute of Urology- Urologist staff

Downloads

Published

2018-12-03

How to Cite

Tanseco, P. P., Randhawa, H., Chua, M. E., Blankstein, U., Kim, J. K., McGrath, M., Lorenzo, A. J., & Braga, L. H. (2018). Postoperative complications of hypospadias repair in patients receiving caudal block vs. non-caudal anesthesia: A meta-analysis. Canadian Urological Association Journal, 13(8). https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.5688

Issue

Vol. 13 No. 8 (2019): CUAJ August

Section

Original Research

License

You, the Author(s), assign your copyright in and to the Article to the Canadian Urological Association. This means that you may not, without the prior written permission of the CUA:

  • Post the Article on any Web site
  • Translate or authorize a translation of the Article
  • Copy or otherwise reproduce the Article, in any format, beyond what is permitted under Canadian copyright law, or authorize others to do so
  • Copy or otherwise reproduce portions of the Article, including tables and figures, beyond what is permitted under Canadian copyright law, or authorize others to do so.

The CUA encourages use for non-commercial educational purposes and will not unreasonably deny any such permission request.

You retain your moral rights in and to the Article. This means that the CUA may not assert its copyright in such a way that would negatively reflect on your reputation or your right to be associated with the Article.

The CUA also requires you to warrant the following:

  • That you are the Author(s) and sole owner(s), that the Article is original and unpublished and that you have not previously assigned copyright or granted a licence to any other third party;
  • That all individuals who have made a substantive contribution to the article are acknowledged;
  • That the Article does not infringe any proprietary right of any third party and that you have received the permissions necessary to include the work of others in the Article; and
  • That the Article does not libel or violate the privacy rights of any third party.