Comparison of Caudal Block and Dexmedetomidine Infusion in Pediatric Patients Undergoing Hypospadias Repair Surgery: A Prospective, Randomized, Double-blinded Clinical Study

Background: Many parents continue to reject caudal block since they worry about a rare neurological consequence that may happen. A parenteral surrogate is sought because it can induce recovery with features such as local analgesia. Objectives: To compare the efficacy and safety of intravenous dexmedetomidine versus caudal and general anesthesia (GA) in children undergoing hypospadias surgery repair. Methods: A randomized prospective study was conducted on 135 pediatric patients scheduled for hypospadias repair surgery in the hospital affiliated to Tanta University. The participants were divided into a control group (Group C) receiving GA, a caudal group receiving caudal block after GA, and a dexmedetomidine group (Group D) receiving intravenous dexmedetomidine after GA. The postoperative modified objective pain score (MOPS), the total pethidine received in the first 24 h postoperatively, and complications were recorded. Results: The patients receiving GA required a significantly higher pethidine dose than the other two groups without a significant difference between caudal and dexmedetomidine. The patients receiving dexmedetomidine were extubated significantly later than patients in the other two groups. Regarding the MOPS score, there was a significant difference between Group C and the other two groups 30 minutes and one hour after operation regarding movements, posture, and agitation. Moreover, a significantly larger number of patients developed tachycardia in Group C compared to the other groups. Conclusions: With the caudal block, the benefits of smooth emergency can be obtained by intravenous dexmedetomidine; however, it had less analgesic efficacy in the pediatric patients undergoing hypospadias repair surgery.