Predictive Performance Of Armitage And Takasaki Formulas In Estimating Local Anesthetic Volume For Pediatric Caudal Block In Lower Abdominal Surgery: A Prospective Comparative Study
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.63682/jns.v14i27S.7128Keywords:
Pediatric caudal anesthesia, Armitage formula, Takasaki formula, Local anesthetic volume, Analgesia durationAbstract
Background: Caudal epidural anesthesia is a widely used technique for pediatric lower abdominal surgeries. However, there is no universal consensus on the optimal formula for estimating local anesthetic (LA) volume. The Armitage formula, though well-established, may lead to overestimation, while the Takasaki modification introduces age- and weight-adjusted dosing aimed at minimizing potential toxicity. This study evaluates the predictive performance of both formulas in pediatric caudal blocks.
Methods: This prospective, randomized, comparative observational study was conducted over six months in the Department of Anaesthesiology at Karpaga Vinayaga Institute of Medical Sciences & Research Centre. Sixty children aged 6 months to 8 years undergoing elective lower abdominal surgeries were randomized into two groups of 30 each. Group A received LA volume as per the Armitage formula (1 mL/kg to T10), while Group T received volume calculated by the Takasaki formula (weight × [0.07 + 0.002 × age in months]). All blocks were administered with 0.25% bupivacaine following standard anesthesia protocols.
Results: Demographic characteristics were comparable between the two groups (p > 0.05). Group A (Armitage) demonstrated significantly faster onset (6.4 ± 1.3 vs. 8.1 ± 1.5 min, p < 0.01), longer duration of analgesia (345 ± 32 vs. 290 ± 35 min, p < 0.01), and fewer patients requiring rescue analgesia (3/30 vs. 9/30, p = 0.04). However, Group T (Takasaki group) used significantly lower volumes of LA (8.5 ± 0.9 vs. 10.2 ± 1.1 mL, p < 0.001). Adverse effects were minimal and statistically insignificant in both groups.
Conclusion: The Armitage formula yielded superior block characteristics, while the Takasaki method reduced anesthetic volume, potentially enhancing safety in younger children. Both methods were safe. Formula selection should be tailored to patient age, weight, and clinical context to balance efficacy and safety in pediatric caudal anesthesia
Downloads
Metrics
References
Armitage EN. “Regional Anaesthesia in Children.” Br J Anaesth. 1979;51(7):559–564.
Takasaki M. “Caudal Epidural Anesthesia in Pediatric Surgery.” J Anesth Clin Res. 2015;6(3):502.
Bosenberg AT, Thomas J, et al. "Advances in Pediatric Regional Anesthesia: Review of Techniques and Dosing." Paediatr Anaesth. 2020;30(5):450–457.
Hassan MA, El-Kassaby AM, et al. "Modified versus Conventional Caudal Dosing Strategies in Children: A Randomized Controlled Study." Anesth Essays Res. 2022;16(1):22–27.
Castillo P, Forestier J, Wiegele M, Finnbogasson T, Lönnqvist PA. Primary spread of caudal blockade in children: the possible limiting role of the lumbar spinal cord enlargement in combination with the cerebrospinal fluid rebound mechanism. Paediatr Anaesth. 2021 Jun;31(6):650–4.
Fahy A, O’Sullivan M, Shorten G. A survey of aseptic precautions and needle type for pediatric caudal block in Australia and New Zealand. Anaesth Intensive Care. 2022 Jan;50(1):22–7.
Kokki H, Ylönen P, Laisalmi M. Isobaric ropivacaine 5 mg/mL for spinal anaesthesia in children. Anesth Analg. 2020 Jan;100(1):66–70.
Suresh S, Ecoffey C. Practice advisory on the prevention and management of complications of pediatric regional anesthesia. Anesthesiology. 2023 Feb;138(2):211–20.
Whitaker EE. Regional anesthesia for ambulatory pediatric penoscrotal procedures. Br J Anaesth. 2021 Apr;122(4):509–17.
Bailey PD, Singh A, Shaw M. Regional anesthesia for ambulatory pediatric penoscrotal procedures. Pediatr Surg Int. 2022 May;38(5):675–81.
Naguib AN, Nassar MA, Abdelhalim AA, Youssef FG. Comparison of adjuvant pharmaceuticals for caudal block in pediatric patients: a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Anesth. 2022 Apr;74:110408.
Tanaka M, Takahashi S, Kawamoto M. Ultrasound evaluation of the sacral area and comparison of sacral interspinous and hiatal approach for caudal block in children. J Anesth. 2021 Apr;35(2):113–9.
Choudhury S, Rajan S, Ravishankar M. Comparison of caudal and transversus abdominis plane block for postoperative analgesia in children: a randomized controlled trial. Indian J Anaesth. 2023 Mar;67(3):200–6.
Yildiz TS, Baykara ZN, Kuzucu A, Ates Y. Comparison of caudal block and transversus abdominis plane block for postoperative analgesia in children: a randomized controlled trial. Paediatr Anaesth. 2021 Apr;31(4):450–6.
Walker BJ, Long JB, Bosenberg A. Ultrasound-guided caudal blockade and sedation for pediatric patients: a prospective observational study. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2023 Mar;48(2):150–6.
Mitra S, Roy S, Ghosh BR. Methods of prolonging the effect of caudal block in children: a review. J Pain Res. 2020 Apr;13:1231–9.
Iliescu AM, Ganea A, Predescu D, Dumitrescu I. A multicenter survey of pediatric caudal epidural anesthesia practices in resource-limited settings. J Pediatr Surg. 2023 Apr;58(4):789–95.
Kaushal S, Singh S, Sharma A. A randomised study comparing the extent of block produced by spinal column height and body weight-based formulae for paediatric caudal analgesia. Indian J Anaesth. 2020;64(6):477–82.
Shawahna R, Jaber M, Maqboul I, Hijaz H, Azar M, Zedan M, et al. A multicenter survey of pediatric caudal epidural anesthesia practices in resource-limited settings. Sci Rep. 2025;15:16166.
Wiegele M, Marhofer P, Lönnqvist PA. Caudal epidural blocks in paediatric patients: a review and practical considerations. Br J Anaesth. 2019;122(4):509–17.
Brenner L, Marhofer P, Kettner SC, Willschke H, Machata AM, Al-Zoraigi U, et al. Ultrasound assessment of cranial spread during caudal blockade in children: the effect of different volumes of local anaesthetics. Br J Anaesth. 2011;107(2):229–35.
Thomas ML, Roebuck D, Yule C, Howard RF. The effect of volume of local anesthetic on the anatomic spread of caudal block in children aged 1–7 years. Paediatr Anaesth. 2010;20(11):1017–21.
Koo BN, Hong JY, Kil HK. Spread of ropivacaine by a weight-based formula in a pediatric caudal block: a fluoroscopic examination. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2010;54(5):562–5.
Lundblad M, Eksborg S, Lönnqvist PA. Secondary spread of caudal block as assessed by ultrasonography. Br J Anaesth. 2012;108(4):675–81.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
You are free to:
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
Terms:
- Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
