Anaesthesia and postoperative analgesia in surgical neonates with or without Downs syndrome: Is it really different?

BackgroundReports conflict on optimal postoperative analgesic treatment in children with intellectual disability. We retrospectively compared postoperative analgesics consumption between neonates with and without Downs syndrome in relation to anaesthesia requirements and pain scores. MethodsWe analysed hypnotic and analgesic drug administration, pain scores [COMFORT-Behaviour (COMFORT-B) scale], and duration of mechanical ventilation during the first 48 h after surgical repair of congenital duodenal obstruction in neonates, between 1999 and 2011. Data of 15 children with Downs syndrome were compared with data of 30 children without Downs syndrome. ResultsGeneral anaesthesia requirements did not differ. The median (inter-quartile range) maintenance dose of morphine during the first 24 h after operation was 9.5 (7.810.1) g kg -1 h -1 in the Downs syndrome group vs 7.7 (5.010.0) g kg -1 h -1 in the control group (P0.46). Morphine doses at postoperative day 2 and COMFORT-B scores at day 1 did not significantly differ between the two groups. COMFORT-B scores at day two were lower in children with Downs syndrome (P0.04). The duration of postoperative mechanical ventilation did not statistically differ between the two groups (P0.89). ConclusionsIn this study, neonates with and without Downs syndrome received adequate postoperative analgesia, as judged from comparable analgesic consumption and pain scores. We recommend prospective studies in children of different age groups with Downs syndrome and in other groups of intellectually disabled children to provide further investigation of the hypothesis that intellectual disability predisposes to different analgesic requirements

High resolution MRI for preoperative work-up of neonates with an anorectal malformation: a direct comparison with distal pressure colostography/fistulography

Objective: To compare MRI and colostography/fistulography in neonates with anorectal malformations (ARM), using surgery as reference standard. Methods: Thirty-three neonates (22 boys) with ARM were included. All patients underwent both preoperative high-resolution MRI (without sedation or contrast instillation) and colostography/fistulography. The Krickenbeck classification was used to classify anorectal malformations, and the level of the rectal ending in relation to the levator muscle was evaluated. Results: Subjects included nine patients with a bulbar recto-urethral fistula, six with a prostatic recto-urethral fistula, five with a vestibular fistula, five with a cloacal malformation, four without fistula, one with a H-type fistula, one with anal stenosis, one with a rectoperineal fistula and one with a bladderneck fistula. MRI and colostography/fistulography predicted anatomy in 88 % (29/33) and 61 % (20/33) of cases, respectively (p = 0.012). The distal end of the rectal pouch was correctly predicted in 88 % (29/33) and 67 % (22/33) of cases, respectively (p = 0.065). The length of the common channel in cloacal malformation was predicted with MRI in all (100 %, 5/5) and in 80 % of cases (4/5) with colostography/fistulography. Two bowel perforations occurred during colostography/fistulography. Conclusions: MRI provides the most accurate evaluation of ARM and should be considered a serious alternative to colostography/fistulography during preoperative work-up. Key Points: • High-resolution MRI is feasible without the use of sedation or anaesthesia. • MRI is more accurate than colostography/fistulography in visualising the type of ARM. • MRI is as reliable as colostography/fistulography in predicting the level of the rectal pouch. • Colostography/fistulography can be complicated by bowel perforation