Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of the effects of ring block and dorsal penile nerve block on parental satisfaction for circumcision operation in children: randomized controlled trial

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Pediatric Surgery International Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

In children, circumcision is a procedure associated with perioperative pain and parental satisfaction is an important parameter in the evaluation of anesthesia procedures. Inadequate dorsal penile nerve block (DPNB) for the ventral shaft of the penis might impact parental satisfaction negatively. To evaluate this hypothesis, we compared the effects of penile ring block (RB) and dorsal penile nerve block (DPNB) on parental satisfaction. Postoperative pain, need for additional analgesia, intraoperative hemodynamic data, recovery status, side effects, and postoperative complications were evaluated as secondary outcomes between the blocks.

Methods

Parental satisfaction and anesthetic effectiveness of RB and DPNB for circumcision in children were compared. 86 patients were randomized 1:1 to Group RB and Group DPNB, which were administered the same dose of anesthesia. Parental satisfaction was evaluated with the Pediatric Anesthesia Parental Satisfaction Questionnaire (PAPS). Postoperative pain evaluations were made with the Face, Legs, Activity, Crying, Consolability Pain Scale (FLACC).

Results

In terms of parent satisfaction, no differences were detected between the groups in the pre-anesthesia, pre-anesthesia and post-anesthesia, post-anesthesia, hospital team, and anesthesia team parameters (p > 0.05). The scores of Group DPNB patients were higher only in the “Q11” subparameter in the “anesthesia team” parameter, and this difference was significant (0.024).

Conclusion

RB and DPNB were compared in circumcision, which is the most common surgical procedure for children. Parental satisfaction, anesthesia, and analgesic effects of both blocks were found to be similar.

Clinical trials

ACTRN12622001211752.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

References

  1. Darby C, Hays RD, Kletke P (2005) Development and evaluation of the CAHPS® hospital survey. Health Serv Res 40(6 Pt 2):1973–1976

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Milliken-Glabe SJ, Zuk J, Ziniel SI, Bjur KA, Alvarez M, Szolnoki JM et al (2017) First steps in validating the pediatric anesthesia parent satisfaction (PAPS) survey. Paediatr Anaesth 27(2):153–161

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Morris BJ, Wamai RG, Henebeng EB, Tobian AA, Klausner JD, Banerjee J et al (2016) Estimation of country-specific and global prevalence of male circumcision. Popul Health Metr 1(14):4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Alanis MC, Lucidi RS (2004) Neonatal circumcision: a review of the world’s oldest and most controversial operation. Obstet Gynecol Surv 59(5):379–395

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Bondesson E, Olofsson T, Caverius U, Schelin MEC, Jöud A (2020) Consultation prevalence among children, adolescents and young adults with pain conditions: a description of age- and gender differences. Eur J Pain 24(3):649–658

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Hicks CL, von Baeyer CL, Spafford PA, van Korlaar I, Goodenough B (2001) The faces pain scale-revised: toward a common metric in pediatric pain measurement. Pain 93(2):173–183

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Polaner DM, Taenzer AH, Walker BJ, Bosenberg A, Krane EJ, Suresh S et al (2012) Pediatric regional anesthesia network (PRAN): a multi-institutional study of the use and incidence of complications of pediatric regional anesthesia. Anesth Analg 115(6):1353

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Ecoffey C, Lacroix F, Giaufré E, Orliaguet G, Courrèges P, Française (adarpef) ADARPD (2010) Epidemiology and morbidity of regional anesthesia in children: a follow-up one-year prospective survey of the French-Language Society of Paediatric Anaesthesiologists (ADARPEF). Pediatr Anesth 20(12):1061–1069

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Aksu C, Akay MA, Şen MC, Gürkan Y (2019) Ultrasound-guided dorsal penile nerve block vs neurostimulator-guided pudendal nerve block in children undergoing hypospadias surgery: a prospective, randomized, double-blinded trial. Pediatr Anesth 29(10):1046–1052

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Cote CJ, Lerman J, Todres ID (2012) A practice of anesthesia for ınfants and children E-book: expert consult: Online and Print. Elsevier Health Sciences, p 1660

  11. Naja Z, Al-Tannir MA, Faysal W, Daoud N, Ziade F, El-Rajab M (2011) A comparison of pudendal block vs dorsal penile nerve block for circumcision in children: a randomised controlled trial. Anaesthesia 66(9):802–807

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Holliday MA, Pinckert TL, Kiernan SC, Kunos I, Angelus P, Keszler M (1999) Dorsal penile nerve block vs topical placebo for circumcision in low-birth-weight neonates. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 153(5):476–480

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Irwin DMG, Cheng W (1996) Comparison of subcutaneous ring block of the penis with caudal epidural block for post-circumcision analgesia in children. Anaesthesia and Intensive Care [Internet]. 1996 Jun 1. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/https://doi.org/10.1177/0310057X9602400311?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori%3Arid%3Acrossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub++0pubmed. Accessed 19 Aug 2023

  14. Lander J, Brady-Fryer B, Metcalfe JB, Nazarali S, Muttitt S (1997) Comparison of ring block, dorsal penile nerve block, and topical anesthesia for neonatal circumcision: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 278(24):2157–2162

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Long RM, McCartan D, Cullen I, Harmon D, Flood HD (2010) A preliminary study of the sensory distribution of the penile dorsal and ventral nerves: implications for effective penile block for circumcision. BJU Int 105(11):1576–1578

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Ozen V, Yigit D (2020) A comparison of the postoperative analgesic effectiveness of low dose caudal epidural block and US-guided dorsal penile nerve block with in-plane technique in circumcision. J Pediatr Urol 16(1):99–106

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Serour F, Mori J, Barr J (1994) Optimal regional anesthesia for circumcision. Anesth Analg 79(1):129–131

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Tree-Trakarn T, Pirayavaraporn S (1985) Postoperative pain relief for circumcision in children: comparison among morphine, nerve block, and topical analgesia. Anesthesiology 62(4):519–522

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Karasu D, Yilmaz C, Ozgunay SE, Karaduman I, Ozer D, Kaya M (2018) Effects of different anesthetic agents on surgical site hemorrhage during circumcision. Urol J 15(2):21–26

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Brown TCK, Weidner NJ, Bouwmeester J (1989) Dorsal nerve of penis block—anatomical and radiological studies. Anaesth Intensive Care 17(1):34–38

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Sandeman DJ, Dilley AV (2007) Ultrasound guided dorsal penile nerve block in children. Anaesth Intensive Care 35(2):266–269

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Hardwick-Smith S, Mastrobattista JM, Wallace PA, Ritchey ML (1998) Ring block for neonatal circumcision. Obstet Gynecol 91(6):930–934

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Naja ZA, Ziade FM, Al-Tannir MA, Abi Mansour RM, El-Rajab MA (2005) Addition of clonidine and fentanyl: comparison between three different regional anesthetic techniques in circumcision. Paediatr Anaesth 15(11):964–970

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Osmani F, Ferrer F, Barnett NR (2021) Regional anesthesia for ambulatory pediatric penoscrotal procedures. J Pediatr Urol 17(6):836–844

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Güncel bilgiler ışığında her yönüyle sünnet - PDF Ücretsiz indirin [Internet]. https://docplayer.biz.tr/129025507-Guncel-bilgiler-isiginda-her-yonuyle-sunnet.html. Accessed 8 Nov 2023

  26. Merkel SI, Voepel-Lewis T, Shayevitz JR, Malviya S (1997) The FLACC: a behavioral scale for scoring postoperative pain in young children. Pediatr Nurs 23(3):293–297

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Peng T, Qu S, Du Z, Chen Z, Xiao T, Chen R (2023) A systematic review of the measurement properties of face, legs, activity, cry and consolability scale for pediatric pain assessment. J Pain Res 16:1185

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Lönnqvist PA (2010) Regional anaesthesia and analgesia in the neonate. Best Pract Res Clin Anaesthesiol 24(3):309–321

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Mellon RD, Simone AF, Rappaport BA (2007) Use of anesthetic agents in neonates and young children. Anesth Analg 104(3):509–520

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The study was presented at the 57th National Congress of the Turkish Society of Anaesthesiology and Reanimation. 2–7 November 2023. Antalya, Turkey. Statistical review was performed by Mahmut Sami Tutar. Professional writing support was provided by the “Akademik Translation” organization.

Funding

No financial support was received.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Anesthesiology and Reanimation, Karamanoğlu Mehmetbey University Faculty of Medicine, Yunus Emre Campus, Center, 70200, Karaman, Turkey

    Hatice Toprak

  2. Department of Urology, Karamanoğlu Mehmetbey University Faculty of Medicine, Yunus Emre Campus, Center, 70200, Karaman, Turkey

    Emre Kandemir

Authors
  1. Hatice Toprak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Emre Kandemir
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

H.T. and E.K. designed the study. H.T. wrote the main text of the manuscript and prepared the figures. All the authors reviewed the article.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hatice Toprak.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

There is no conflict of interest between the authors. Artificial intelligence supported technologies were not used in the writing process.

Ethics approval

All the procedures performed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and national research committee and Helsinki.

Consent to participate

Informed consent was obtained from the participants.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Toprak, H., Kandemir, E. Comparison of the effects of ring block and dorsal penile nerve block on parental satisfaction for circumcision operation in children: randomized controlled trial. Pediatr Surg Int 40, 101 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00383-024-05681-5

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00383-024-05681-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation