Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research, ISSN - 0973 - 709X

Users Online : 113458

AbstractMaterial and MethodsResultsDiscussionConclusionReferencesDOI and Others
Article in PDF How to Cite Citation Manager Readers' Comments (0) Audio Visual Article Statistics Link to PUBMED Print this Article Send to a Friend
Advertisers Access Statistics Resources

Dr Mohan Z Mani

"Thank you very much for having published my article in record time.I would like to compliment you and your entire staff for your promptness, courtesy, and willingness to be customer friendly, which is quite unusual.I was given your reference by a colleague in pathology,and was able to directly phone your editorial office for clarifications.I would particularly like to thank the publication managers and the Assistant Editor who were following up my article. I would also like to thank you for adjusting the money I paid initially into payment for my modified article,and refunding the balance.
I wish all success to your journal and look forward to sending you any suitable similar article in future"

Dr Mohan Z Mani,
Professor & Head,
Department of Dermatolgy,
Believers Church Medical College,
Thiruvalla, Kerala
On Sep 2018

Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar

"Over the last few years, we have published our research regularly in Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research. Having published in more than 20 high impact journals over the last five years including several high impact ones and reviewing articles for even more journals across my fields of interest, we value our published work in JCDR for their high standards in publishing scientific articles. The ease of submission, the rapid reviews in under a month, the high quality of their reviewers and keen attention to the final process of proofs and publication, ensure that there are no mistakes in the final article. We have been asked clarifications on several occasions and have been happy to provide them and it exemplifies the commitment to quality of the team at JCDR."

Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar
Head, Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad
Chairman, Research Group, Charutar Arogya Mandal, Karamsad
National Joint Coordinator - Advanced IAP NNF NRP Program
Ex-Member, Governing Body, National Neonatology Forum, New Delhi
Ex-President - National Neonatology Forum Gujarat State Chapter
Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad, Anand, Gujarat.
On Sep 2018

Dr. Kalyani R

"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research is at present a well-known Indian originated scientific journal which started with a humble beginning. I have been associated with this journal since many years. I appreciate the Editor, Dr. Hemant Jain, for his constant effort in bringing up this journal to the present status right from the scratch. The journal is multidisciplinary. It encourages in publishing the scientific articles from postgraduates and also the beginners who start their career. At the same time the journal also caters for the high quality articles from specialty and super-specialty researchers. Hence it provides a platform for the scientist and researchers to publish. The other aspect of it is, the readers get the information regarding the most recent developments in science which can be used for teaching, research, treating patients and to some extent take preventive measures against certain diseases. The journal is contributing immensely to the society at national and international level."

Dr Kalyani R
Professor and Head
Department of Pathology
Sri Devaraj Urs Medical College
Sri Devaraj Urs Academy of Higher Education and Research , Kolar, Karnataka
On Sep 2018

Dr. Saumya Navit

"As a peer-reviewed journal, the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research provides an opportunity to researchers, scientists and budding professionals to explore the developments in the field of medicine and dentistry and their varied specialities, thus extending our view on biological diversities of living species in relation to medicine.
‘Knowledge is treasure of a wise man.’ The free access of this journal provides an immense scope of learning for the both the old and the young in field of medicine and dentistry as well. The multidisciplinary nature of the journal makes it a better platform to absorb all that is being researched and developed. The publication process is systematic and professional. Online submission, publication and peer reviewing makes it a user-friendly journal.
As an experienced dentist and an academician, I proudly recommend this journal to the dental fraternity as a good quality open access platform for rapid communication of their cutting-edge research progress and discovery.
I wish JCDR a great success and I hope that journal will soar higher with the passing time."

Dr Saumya Navit
Professor and Head
Department of Pediatric Dentistry
Saraswati Dental College
On Sep 2018

Dr. Arunava Biswas

"My sincere attachment with JCDR as an author as well as reviewer is a learning experience . Their systematic approach in publication of article in various categories is really praiseworthy.
Their prompt and timely response to review's query and the manner in which they have set the reviewing process helps in extracting the best possible scientific writings for publication.
It's a honour and pride to be a part of the JCDR team. My very best wishes to JCDR and hope it will sparkle up above the sky as a high indexed journal in near future."

Dr. Arunava Biswas
MD, DM (Clinical Pharmacology)
Assistant Professor
Department of Pharmacology
Calcutta National Medical College & Hospital , Kolkata

Dr. C.S. Ramesh Babu
" Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a multi-specialty medical and dental journal publishing high quality research articles in almost all branches of medicine. The quality of printing of figures and tables is excellent and comparable to any International journal. An added advantage is nominal publication charges and monthly issue of the journal and more chances of an article being accepted for publication. Moreover being a multi-specialty journal an article concerning a particular specialty has a wider reach of readers of other related specialties also. As an author and reviewer for several years I find this Journal most suitable and highly recommend this Journal."
Best regards,
C.S. Ramesh Babu,
Associate Professor of Anatomy,
Muzaffarnagar Medical College,
On Aug 2018

Dr. Arundhathi. S
"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a reputed peer reviewed journal and is constantly involved in publishing high quality research articles related to medicine. Its been a great pleasure to be associated with this esteemed journal as a reviewer and as an author for a couple of years. The editorial board consists of many dedicated and reputed experts as its members and they are doing an appreciable work in guiding budding researchers. JCDR is doing a commendable job in scientific research by promoting excellent quality research & review articles and case reports & series. The reviewers provide appropriate suggestions that improve the quality of articles. I strongly recommend my fraternity to encourage JCDR by contributing their valuable research work in this widely accepted, user friendly journal. I hope my collaboration with JCDR will continue for a long time".

Dr. Arundhathi. S
MBBS, MD (Pathology),
Sanjay Gandhi institute of trauma and orthopedics,
On Aug 2018

Dr. Mamta Gupta,
"It gives me great pleasure to be associated with JCDR, since last 2-3 years. Since then I have authored, co-authored and reviewed about 25 articles in JCDR. I thank JCDR for giving me an opportunity to improve my own skills as an author and a reviewer.
It 's a multispecialty journal, publishing high quality articles. It gives a platform to the authors to publish their research work which can be available for everyone across the globe to read. The best thing about JCDR is that the full articles of all medical specialties are available as pdf/html for reading free of cost or without institutional subscription, which is not there for other journals. For those who have problem in writing manuscript or do statistical work, JCDR comes for their rescue.
The journal has a monthly publication and the articles are published quite fast. In time compared to other journals. The on-line first publication is also a great advantage and facility to review one's own articles before going to print. The response to any query and permission if required, is quite fast; this is quite commendable. I have a very good experience about seeking quick permission for quoting a photograph (Fig.) from a JCDR article for my chapter authored in an E book. I never thought it would be so easy. No hassles.
Reviewing articles is no less a pain staking process and requires in depth perception, knowledge about the topic for review. It requires time and concentration, yet I enjoy doing it. The JCDR website especially for the reviewers is quite user friendly. My suggestions for improving the journal is, more strict review process, so that only high quality articles are published. I find a a good number of articles in Obst. Gynae, hence, a new journal for this specialty titled JCDR-OG can be started. May be a bimonthly or quarterly publication to begin with. Only selected articles should find a place in it.
An yearly reward for the best article authored can also incentivize the authors. Though the process of finding the best article will be not be very easy. I do not know how reviewing process can be improved. If an article is being reviewed by two reviewers, then opinion of one can be communicated to the other or the final opinion of the editor can be communicated to the reviewer if requested for. This will help one’s reviewing skills.
My best wishes to Dr. Hemant Jain and all the editorial staff of JCDR for their untiring efforts to bring out this journal. I strongly recommend medical fraternity to publish their valuable research work in this esteemed journal, JCDR".

Dr. Mamta Gupta
(Ex HOD Obs &Gynae, Hindu Rao Hospital and associated NDMC Medical College, Delhi)
Aug 2018

Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey

"I wish to thank Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), for asking me to write up few words.
Writing is the representation of language in a textual medium i e; into the words and sentences on paper. Quality medical manuscript writing in particular, demands not only a high-quality research, but also requires accurate and concise communication of findings and conclusions, with adherence to particular journal guidelines. In medical field whether working in teaching, private, or in corporate institution, everyone wants to excel in his / her own field and get recognised by making manuscripts publication.

Authors are the souls of any journal, and deserve much respect. To publish a journal manuscripts are needed from authors. Authors have a great responsibility for producing facts of their work in terms of number and results truthfully and an individual honesty is expected from authors in this regards. Both ways its true "No authors-No manuscripts-No journals" and "No journals–No manuscripts–No authors". Reviewing a manuscript is also a very responsible and important task of any peer-reviewed journal and to be taken seriously. It needs knowledge on the subject, sincerity, honesty and determination. Although the process of reviewing a manuscript is a time consuming task butit is expected to give one's best remarks within the time frame of the journal.
Salient features of the JCDR: It is a biomedical, multidisciplinary (including all medical and dental specialities), e-journal, with wide scope and extensive author support. At the same time, a free text of manuscript is available in HTML and PDF format. There is fast growing authorship and readership with JCDR as this can be judged by the number of articles published in it i e; in Feb 2007 of its first issue, it contained 5 articles only, and now in its recent volume published in April 2011, it contained 67 manuscripts. This e-journal is fulfilling the commitments and objectives sincerely, (as stated by Editor-in-chief in his preface to first edition) i e; to encourage physicians through the internet, especially from the developing countries who witness a spectrum of disease and acquire a wealth of knowledge to publish their experiences to benefit the medical community in patients care. I also feel that many of us have work of substance, newer ideas, adequate clinical materials but poor in medical writing and hesitation to submit the work and need help. JCDR provides authors help in this regards.
Timely publication of journal: Publication of manuscripts and bringing out the issue in time is one of the positive aspects of JCDR and is possible with strong support team in terms of peer reviewers, proof reading, language check, computer operators, etc. This is one of the great reasons for authors to submit their work with JCDR. Another best part of JCDR is "Online first Publications" facilities available for the authors. This facility not only provides the prompt publications of the manuscripts but at the same time also early availability of the manuscripts for the readers.
Indexation and online availability: Indexation transforms the journal in some sense from its local ownership to the worldwide professional community and to the public.JCDR is indexed with Embase & EMbiology, Google Scholar, Index Copernicus, Chemical Abstracts Service, Journal seek Database, Indian Science Abstracts, to name few of them. Manuscriptspublished in JCDR are available on major search engines ie; google, yahoo, msn.
In the era of fast growing newer technologies, and in computer and internet friendly environment the manuscripts preparation, submission, review, revision, etc and all can be done and checked with a click from all corer of the world, at any time. Of course there is always a scope for improvement in every field and none is perfect. To progress, one needs to identify the areas of one's weakness and to strengthen them.
It is well said that "happy beginning is half done" and it fits perfectly with JCDR. It has grown considerably and I feel it has already grown up from its infancy to adolescence, achieving the status of standard online e-journal form Indian continent since its inception in Feb 2007. This had been made possible due to the efforts and the hard work put in it. The way the JCDR is improving with every new volume, with good quality original manuscripts, makes it a quality journal for readers. I must thank and congratulate Dr Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief JCDR and his team for their sincere efforts, dedication, and determination for making JCDR a fast growing journal.
Every one of us: authors, reviewers, editors, and publisher are responsible for enhancing the stature of the journal. I wish for a great success for JCDR."

Thanking you
With sincere regards
Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey, M.S., M. Ch., FAIS
Associate Professor,
Department of Paediatric Surgery, Gandhi Medical College & Associated
Kamla Nehru & Hamidia Hospitals Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 462 001 (India)
On May 11,2011

Dr. Shankar P.R.

"On looking back through my Gmail archives after being requested by the journal to write a short editorial about my experiences of publishing with the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), I came across an e-mail from Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor, in March 2007, which introduced the new electronic journal. The main features of the journal which were outlined in the e-mail were extensive author support, cash rewards, the peer review process, and other salient features of the journal.
Over a span of over four years, we (I and my colleagues) have published around 25 articles in the journal. In this editorial, I plan to briefly discuss my experiences of publishing with JCDR and the strengths of the journal and to finally address the areas for improvement.
My experiences of publishing with JCDR: Overall, my experiences of publishing withJCDR have been positive. The best point about the journal is that it responds to queries from the author. This may seem to be simple and not too much to ask for, but unfortunately, many journals in the subcontinent and from many developing countries do not respond or they respond with a long delay to the queries from the authors 1. The reasons could be many, including lack of optimal secretarial and other support. Another problem with many journals is the slowness of the review process. Editorial processing and peer review can take anywhere between a year to two years with some journals. Also, some journals do not keep the contributors informed about the progress of the review process. Due to the long review process, the articles can lose their relevance and topicality. A major benefit with JCDR is the timeliness and promptness of its response. In Dr Jain's e-mail which was sent to me in 2007, before the introduction of the Pre-publishing system, he had stated that he had received my submission and that he would get back to me within seven days and he did!
Most of the manuscripts are published within 3 to 4 months of their submission if they are found to be suitable after the review process. JCDR is published bimonthly and the accepted articles were usually published in the next issue. Recently, due to the increased volume of the submissions, the review process has become slower and it ?? Section can take from 4 to 6 months for the articles to be reviewed. The journal has an extensive author support system and it has recently introduced a paid expedited review process. The journal also mentions the average time for processing the manuscript under different submission systems - regular submission and expedited review.
Strengths of the journal: The journal has an online first facility in which the accepted manuscripts may be published on the website before being included in a regular issue of the journal. This cuts down the time between their acceptance and the publication. The journal is indexed in many databases, though not in PubMed. The editorial board should now take steps to index the journal in PubMed. The journal has a system of notifying readers through e-mail when a new issue is released. Also, the articles are available in both the HTML and the PDF formats. I especially like the new and colorful page format of the journal. Also, the access statistics of the articles are available. The prepublication and the manuscript tracking system are also helpful for the authors.
Areas for improvement: In certain cases, I felt that the peer review process of the manuscripts was not up to international standards and that it should be strengthened. Also, the number of manuscripts in an issue is high and it may be difficult for readers to go through all of them. The journal can consider tightening of the peer review process and increasing the quality standards for the acceptance of the manuscripts. I faced occasional problems with the online manuscript submission (Pre-publishing) system, which have to be addressed.
Overall, the publishing process with JCDR has been smooth, quick and relatively hassle free and I can recommend other authors to consider the journal as an outlet for their work."

Dr. P. Ravi Shankar
KIST Medical College, P.O. Box 14142, Kathmandu, Nepal.
On April 2011

Dear team JCDR, I would like to thank you for the very professional and polite service provided by everyone at JCDR. While i have been in the field of writing and editing for sometime, this has been my first attempt in publishing a scientific paper.Thank you for hand-holding me through the process.

Dr. Anuradha
On Jan 2020

Important Notice

Original article / research
Year : 2022 | Month : October | Volume : 16 | Issue : 10 | Page : UC48 - UC51 Full Version

Efficacy of a Novel Face-to-Face Lateral Position (Partha’s Technique) in Children to Aid Identification of Caudal Space during Single Dose Caudal Epidural Anaesthesia for Elective Infraumblical Surgeries- A Feasibility Study

Published: October 1, 2022 | DOI:
S Parthasarathy, S Kulandayan, R Surya

1. Professor, Department of Anaesthesiology, Mahatma Gandhi Medical College and Research Institute, Puducherry, India. 2. Associate Professor, Department of Anaesthesiology, Dhanalakshmi Srinivasan Medical College, Perambalur, Tamil Nadu, India. 3. Assistant Professor, Department of Anaesthesiology, Saveetha Medical College and Hospital, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India.

Correspondence Address :
Dr. R Surya,
Saveetha Medical College and Hospital, Saveetha Nagar,
Thandalam, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India.


Introduction: A single dose of caudal epidural block accounts for 30-40% of paediatric regional anaesthesia. For infraumblical procedures, it is administered with or without general anaesthesia. The traditional patient position for assisting caudal blocks in children is lateral, with the child's back facing the anaesthesiologist. For caudal epidural block, a novel face-toface orientation of the anaesthesiologist with respect to the child in lateral position was used.

Aim: To determine whether a novel face-to-face position of the anesthesiologist and the child is feasible in identification of the caudal epidural space during administration of caudal epidural anaesthesia following general anaesthesia in paediatric patients undergoing elective infraumblical surgery.

Materials and Methods: This prospective feasibility study was conducted from November 2020 to November 2021 on 15 children belonging to American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I, who were scheduled for elective infraumblical procedures under general anaesthesia, with single dose caudal epidural anaesthesia. While performing caudal block, a novel face-to-face orientation of the anaesthesiologist and patient was used. The following variables were recorded: first pass success rate, number of attempts, block performance time, block failure rate, performer satisfaction score, duration of postoperative analgesia, and complications.

Results: There were eight males and seven females. The mean age of the population was 6.6±2 years and the mean weight was 20.6±3.4 kilograms. The first pass success rate was 86.6% (13/15) with overall success rate of 100%. Number of attempts for successful block were 1.2±0.5. Block performance time and duration of postoperative analgesia were 31.8±12.1 seconds and 176±31.8 minutes, respectively. Performer’s satisfaction score was excellent in 86.6% (13/15) and good in 13.3% (2/15). No incidence of block failure and complications were noted.

Conclusion: The novel face-to-face position in child ergonomics with respect to anaesthesiologist during caudal epidural block performance is a feasible and effective method in children undergoing elective infraumblical procedures.


Block, Ergonomics, Success

Surgery is always associated with an undesirable hormonal stress response secondary to pain in the perioperative period in patients of all ages (1). It is an extremely difficult task for anaesthesiologists to provide adequate necessary perioperative pain relief, especially in the case of paediatric patients, because drug handling in children differs from that in adults due to immature liver and renal systems (2). Regional anaesthesia has been proven beyond doubt to provide safe and effective perioperative pain relief in children. Furthermore, regional anaesthesia reduces the need for inhalational agents, promotes a smooth postoperative recovery, shortens hospital stays, reduces analgesic requirements, and provides excellent patient satisfaction with minimal side-effects (3),(4),(5). Caudal epidural block, with or without general anaesthesia, is widely used (30-40%) in children for perioperative anaesthesia and analgesia for infraumblical surgeries (6),(7).

The traditional position for caudal epidural block in children after preprocedural sedation or general anaesthesia is lateral position with flexion of the neck, hip, and knee, with the anaesthesiologist facing the patient’s back (8). The traditional positioning has been observed to have some fallbacks. It may lead to difficulty in identification of loss of resistance as the needle passes through the sacrococcygeal ligament, needle displacements during connection of injectate filled syringes when it is operated by a single performer after acquiring the caudal space leading to drug delivery in unwanted places (subcutaneous injections, sub periosteal injections, intrathecal injections, intravascular injections), and always warrants airway monitoring as the children are either sedated or under general anaesthesia during caudal blocks. To circumvent all the above said problems, an alternate novel face-to-face technique, as well as lateral positioning of the child, with the anaesthesiologist facing the child’s face (Partha’s Technique) has been tried in this study.

Hence, this feasibility study was conducted on 15 paediatric patients who were scheduled for elective infraumbilical surgeries at a tertiary care hospital. The primary goal was to determine the frequency of first-pass success rates, and the secondary goals were to count the number of attempts, overall block success rate, block performance time, performer’s satisfaction score, block failure rate, duration of postoperative analgesia and complications.

Material and Methods

The present study was a prospective feasibility study which was conducted after obtaining written and informed consent from parents/ guardians, from 15 ASA physical status I children from November 2020 to November 2021, in Mahatma Gandhi Medical College and Research Institute, Puducherry, India. The children were recruited by continuous sampling technique. The study was approved by the academic research committee of the institute and the same was copyrighted with the Government of India (ARC/ Copyright - L 91047- 2020).

Inclusion criteria: Children aged between 2 to 12 years belonging to ASA I who underwent elective infraumbilical surgeries in the study institute during the study period were included in the study.

Exclusion criteria: Paediatric patients belonging to ASA physical status II and above, skin infection over the sacral hiatus, any bony deformity of sacrum, history of coagulopathy, allergy to local anaesthetic drugs, emergent surgical scenarios, prior neurological deficits or disorders and children whose guardians refused to give willful informed and written consent for anaesthesia and enrollment into the study were excluded from this study.


All the children were kept nil per oral for 2 hours for clear fluids and 4 hours for milk. In the preoperative area, patients were premedicated with oral midazolam 0.5 mg/kg, 15-20 minutes before the scheduled procedure. The individual parent consent was taken from each parent. After the patients were sedated, they were shifted inside the operating room. Patients were connected to routine preinduction parameters (non invasive blood pressure, heart rate, electrocardiography, oxygen saturation, and end tidal carbon dioxide). Baseline values were recorded and documented.

Anaesthesia induction was done by inhalation of sevoflurane 6-8% via a face mask. An intravenous line was started. Injection glycopyrrolate 0.1 milligram per kilogram, injection fentanyl 2 microgram per kilogram and injection succinylcholine 2 milligram per kilogram was given through the intravenous line along with intravenous fluids. Appropriate sized I-gel laryngeal mask airway was placed according to the weight of the child. Anaesthesia was maintained with 33% Oxygen (O2): 67% Nitrous Oxide (N2O) mixture and sevoflurane reduced to 1-2% to target minimum alveolar concentration of 1, with a total fresh gas flow of 6 litres per minute and the child was allowed to breath spontaneous thereafter throughout the surgery. The patient was positioned in the lateral position facing the anaesthesiologist (Face-to-Face position) and a caudal block was performed by a single experienced anaesthesiologist who had performed more than 500 paediatric caudal epidural injections. Under strict aseptic precautions, sacral cornua, and sacral hiatus was palpated using the non dominant hand (left hand) of the anaesthesiologist over the skin after slightly bending forward over the child. A 25 gauge, 1 inch hypodermic needle was inserted at angle of 60 to 80 degree measured on the skin surface by the anaesthesiologist in a direction towards him. The needle was further advanced until sacrococcygeal ligament was felt and crossed with a “give way or pop” for identification of caudal epidural space using “standard loss of resistance” technique.

Then, the angle was further reduced by 20 to 30 degree and the needle was advanced by 2 to 3 millimeters to enter the sacral canal. Then, the needle in the sacral canal was held firmly by the same anaesthesiologist. Under aseptic precautions, the syringe with the local anaesthetic solution which was previously prepared by the same anaesthesiologist prior to needling, was connected to the needle firmly without dislodging the needle tip by an experienced anaesthesia assistant/technician. Then, the syringe was aspirated for blood/CSF and once the position was confirmed, the local anaesthetic drug was administered by an experienced anaesthesia assistant/technician without dislodging the needle after careful negative aspiration for every 2 millilitre of injection. About 1 millilitre per kilogram body weight of 0.25% bupivacaine was given in the caudal epidural space (9). The number of attempts, block performance time, procedure failure rate, performer’s satisfaction score and complications, if any were noted. The surgical incision was made after 10 minutes of caudal placement.

Successful caudal block was defined as no change or change in heart rate or mean arterial pressure or both not more than 15% from the baseline as a response to skin incision. Caudal block failure was defined as rise of either heart rate or mean arterial pressure or both more than 15% from the baseline during the scheduled surgical procedure. In such case scenarios, a bolus of 1 to 2 micrograms of fentanyl was administered every hour throughout the surgery for pain relief. After the surgery was over, sevoflurane was stopped and the 100% oxygen was administered and the child was extubated after the child satisfied extubation criteria.

Incidence of first pass success rate which was defined as needle reaching the sacral hiatus with a subjective feeling of give or loss of resistance on puncture of the sacrococcygeal ligament on first puncture without withdrawal from the skin. Number of attempts was defined as the number of skin punctures for successful caudal block. Block performance time was defined as the time from start of palpation of land marks to end of successful administration of drug solution in the caudal epidural space. Duration of postoperative analgesia was defined as the time duration from end of general anaesthesia to the time of Wong Bakers face scale of more than 2 or time of request to first dose of analgesia in the Postoperative Care Unit (PACU), whichever is first (10). Performer’s Satisfaction Score was obtained in a scale of four ( 0- worst, 1- bad, 2- good, 3- excellent). Complications such as intravascular injection, intrathecal injection, subcutaneous injection and intraosseous/subperiosteal injection were noted.

The haemodynamcis (heart rate, non invasive blood pressure), oxygen saturations were monitored every three minutes during the first half an hour of anaesthesia and thereafter every 15 minutes during rest of the intraoperative period and every 30 minutes for six hours in the postoperative period. The postoperative pain was monitored using Wong Bakers faces scale every 30 minutes once for first six hours and thereafter every two hours once till 24 hours in the PACU. Anesthesiologists who were collecting the entered data in the operating room and anesthesiologists in PACU were blinded to the anaesthetic technique used.

Statistical Analysis

All the data was recorded in Microsoft Excel sheet. Statistical analysis was carried out using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 19.0 (Armonk,NY:IBMcorp) software. Descriptive analyses were reported as mean and standard deviation of continuous variables.


The mean age was 6.6±2 years and, weight was 20.6±3.4 kilograms. Out of 15 children, 8 were males and 7 were females. The surgeries which the patients underwent included tendoachilles lengthening, lower limb fractures, appendicectomy, orchidopexy and herniotomies. The mean duration of surgery was 50.6±18.4 minutes.

The first pass success rate was 86.6% (13/15). Overall success rate was 100% (15/15). Mean number of attempts was 1.2±0.5. The number of attempts required for a successful caudal epidural block are described in (Table/Fig 1). Block performance time was 31.8±12.1 seconds. There was no incidence of any failed block and complications. Duration of postoperative analgesia was 176±31.8 minutes. Performer’s satisfaction score was excellent in 86.6% (13/15) and good in 13.3% (2/15). All the patients were haemodynamically stable in the intraoperative and postoperative period and no much difference in postoperative pain scores were noted.


Caudal epidural anaesthesia is one of the most commonly used and performed techniques in children for perioperative pain after thoracic, abdominal, and infraumblical procedures (8). A needle is inserted through the sacral hiatus to deliver medications, usually local anaesthetics, into the epidural space (8). It is now used to manage a few chronic pain disorders in adults (11). There are numerous approaches to caudal epidural anaesthesia. It can be done using either a landmark or an image (fluoroscopic or ultrasound guidance) (12). In landmark guided technique, the sacral cornua as two bony prominences, the sacral hiatus can be identified as a dimple in between the prominences by palpation. A needle is inserted at 45° to the sacrum and need to be redirected if the posterior surface of sacral bone is contacted. A subjective feeling of give or loss of resistance usually suggests piercing the sacrococcygeal ligament. There are a few tests like whoosch and swoosch tests for confirmation (13). It is recommended that caudal epidural block should be performed by ultrasound guidance rather than conventional landmark guidance or blind technique because of its inaccuracy (14),(15),(16). Recently ultrasound guidance is becoming popular with more precision and drug visualisation. Still ultrasound guided caudal anaesthesia is not popular among a majority of anaesthesia specialists because of lack of expertise or lack of ultrasound machines in operating rooms.

Koo BN et al., have demonstrated that in lateral patient position with maximum flexion of neck, hip and knees, there is significant cephalic displacement of the dural sac (17). Hence, finding the right position of the patient can aid in avoiding complications associated with the caudal blocks. So far, the position of the attending anaesthesiologist has been the traditional technique of seeing the back of the child as depicted in (Table/Fig 2). Authors propose a change of the position of the child (face-to-face position of child with respect to anaesthesiologist) as depicted in (Table/Fig 3) may help in increasing the comfort for the anaesthesiologist.

Whichever be the technique, the administrator works behind the patient and introduces the needle from closer to farer from him. This predisposes to a technical difficulty in feeling the so called “give” of the space (Table/Fig 2). After getting into the space, the anaesthesiologist may find difficulty in giving the injection as there will be a subtle needle movement while engaging the injectate filled syringe with the needle hub before administration of the drug. This may hamper the position of the needle. Hence authors thought, if the needle is coming towards the administrator (Table/Fig 3) the feel of the negative space may be better and the injection can be given by a technician without even a very minimal movement of the needle into the desired caudal space alone.

There are several advantages of this novel face-to-face technique (Partha’s technique or method) of caudal epidural block. Firstly, the airway can be monitored directly by the anaesthesiologist who is performing the caudal block since the anaesthesiologist is facing the face of the child rather than facing the back of the child in conventional technique to avoid any airway related morbidities during the performance of caudal block by the anaesthesiologist. Secondly, there can be better child cooperation in a child with procedural sedation since it simulates hugging of the child which will keep the child more comfortable. Thirdly, there will be better feel of give way of sacrococcygeal ligament and negative space since the needle travels before backwards towards the anaesthesiologist in contrast to closer to farer direction in conventional technique, hence can be easily performed by naive anaesthesiologists and also in difficult caudal cases such as in children with excess soft tissues overlying the sacral cornua. Fourthly, this novel technique is likely to be more successful when compared to conventional technique as the anaesthesiologist hand holds firmly on the needle and injectate is delivered by an assistant anaesthesiologist/technician avoiding even subtle needle tip movement during engaging the syringe and the needle before injection, swoosh testing for confirming correct caudal needle placement, needle movements during injection and thus, avoiding complications such as inadvertant intradural injections, subperiosteal injections, intravascular injections and subcutaneous injections.

Riaz A et al., found that block success on first attempt with conventional position of anaesthesiologist facing child’s back to be significantly higher with ultrasound guided caudal epidural block (95%) compared to land mark guided caudal block (70.83%) (p-value <0.001) (15). Similar finding was observed with Kollipara N et al., (13) where first puncture success with ultrasound guided technique was observed to be 90.56% and landmark guided technique was found to be 64.2% (p-value=0.001) with traditional positioning of child’s back facing anaesthesiologist which definitely lesser when compared to present study. Dhadwal SS et al., also found that the block success with first attempt was 61.29% with conventional positioning for landmark guided caudal epidural and 90.32% with ultrasound guidance (p-value=0.008) (16). In the present study, with this novel face-to-face positioning, the first pass success rate was found to be 86.6% which is definitely more than conventional positioning for landmark guided caudal block used in previously mentioned studies. It was found that the first pass success rate was even closer to success rate on first attempt of ultrasound guided caudal block with traditional positioning of the child. This clearly states that the anaesthesiologists can perform the caudal epidural block with ease with current novel face to face position of the child.

Kollipara N et al., found that the mean number of needle punctures were 1.45±0.667 with landmark based technique and 1.09±0.295 with ultrasound guided technique (p-value=0.01) in their study (14). In the present study, a similar number of attempts of 1.2±0.5 with the novel face-to-face position for caudal block was observed. One child had to undergo second attempt and one child had to undergo third attempt for successful administration of caudal block since the bone was encountered by the needle hindering the correct placement of the needle tip in the caudal space. Kollipara N et al., and Dhadwal SS et al., observed that the block success rates with landmark guided caudal blocks with traditional positioning was 98.1% and 83.87%, respectively. The block success rate with ultrasound guided caudal blocks with traditional positioning was 100% with both Kollipara N et al., (14) and Dhadwal SS et al., (16). In the current study also had similar block success rate of 100% which implies that the novel positioning had a comparable success rates with ultrasound guided caudal blocks and increased success rate when compared to landmark guided caudal blocks with traditional position of the child.

Riaz A et al., observed that block performance time with traditional positioning was 63.62±13.10 seconds which was more than the block performance time in the current study (31.8±12.1 seconds). Kollipara N et al., (14) and Dhadwal SS et al., (16) observed that the block performance time was 30.34±7.34 seconds and 39.3 seconds, respectively which was similar to the current study (31.8±12.1 seconds). When comparing with block performance time with ultrasound guided caudal block with traditional positioning of the child as observed by Riaz A et al., (15) (118.88±16.11 seconds), Kollipara N et al., (13) (53.19±10.97 seconds) and Dhadwal SS et al., (16) (52.2 seconds), it was observed that current study had a very less time to block performance with the novel face-to-face position (31.8±12.1 seconds). Dhadwal SS et al., (16) noted that significantly higher incidence of subcutaneous bulging in patients who underwent landmark guided caudal block (25.81%) compared to ultrasound guided caudal block (6.45%) with traditional position of the child, In contrast, no complications were observed in the current study. There was no incidence of intrathecal injections, intravascular injections, intraosseous/subperiosteal injection and haemodynamic imbalances in present study. The duration of postoperative analgesia was satisfactory with mean duration of 176±31.8 minutes. The intraoperative and postoperative haemodynamics were stable.


This study was conducted on a very small population. Secondly, the caudal epidural block in this novel face-to-face position was performed by a single senior anaesthesiologist with over 500 caudal blocks of experience. As a result, future studies should be conducted in a much larger population, with anaesthesiologists of varying experience, and compared to conventional approaches.


In terms of adequate first pass success rate and shorter block performance time without complications, the novel face-to-face position of the anaesthesiologist with respect to the child while performing caudal epidural anaesthesia (Partha’s technique) is a feasible and effective method of caudal anaesthesia in children undergoing elective infraumblical procedures.

Acknowledgments for diagram courtesy: Dr. Indubala Maurya, Assistant Professor, Department of Anaesthesia, Superspeciality Cancer Institute and Hospital, CG City, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India.


Yuki K, Matsunami E, Tazawa K, Wang W, DiNardo JA, Koutsogiannaki S. Pediatric perioperative stress responses and anesthesia. Transl Perioper Pain Med. 2017;2(1):1-12.
Bester K, Meyer H, Crowther M, Gray R. Anaesthesia for paediatric patients: Minimising the risk. SAMJ: South African Medical Journal. 2018;108(6):457-59. [crossref]
Wolf AR. Effects of regional analgesia on stress responses to pediatric surgery. Paediatr Anaesth. 2012;22(1):19-24. [crossref] [PubMed]
Shah RD, Suresh S. Applications of regional anaesthesia in paediatrics. BJA: British Journal of Anaesthesia. 2013;111(suppl_1):i114-24. [crossref] [PubMed]
Ponde V. Recent trends in paediatric regional anaesthesia. Indian Journal of Anaesthesia. 2019;63(9):746-53. [crossref] [PubMed]
Jöhr M, Berger TM. Caudal blocks. Paediatr Anaesth. 2012;22(1):44-50. [crossref] [PubMed]
Benka AU, Pandurov M, Galambos IF, Rakić G, Vrsajkov V, Drašković B, et al. Effects of caudal block in pediatric surgical patients: A randomized clinical trial. Braz J Anesthesiol. 2020;70(2):97-03. [crossref] [PubMed]
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. [crossref] [PubMed]
Suresh S, Ecoffey C, Bosenberg A, Lonnqvist PA, de Oliveira GS, de Leon Casasola O, et al. The European Society of regional anaesthesia and pain therapy/ American Society of regional anesthesia and pain medicine Recommendations on local anesthetics and adjuvants dosage in Pediatric Regional Anesthesia. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2018;43(2):211-16. [crossref] [PubMed]
Mazur A, Radziewicz Winnicki I, Szczepan´ ski T. Pain management in children. Ann Agric Environ Med. 2013;20(1):28-34.
Vranken JH, Lycklama EWF, TerRiet SF, Sassen AM, Zuurmond WWA. Caudal epidural block in chronic pain management: Where does the anaesthetic solution go? European Journal of Anaesthesiology. 2000;17:183. [crossref]
Kao SC, Lin CS. Caudal epidural block: An updated review of anatomy and techniques. Bio Med Res Int. 2017;2017:e9217145. [crossref] [PubMed]
Talwar V, Tyagi R, Mullick P, Gogia AR. Comparison of “whoosh” and modified “swoosh” test for identification of the caudal epidural space in children. Paediatr Anaesth. 2006;16(2):134-39. [crossref] [PubMed]
Kollipara N, Kodali VRK, Parameswari A. A randomized double-blinded controlled trial comparing ultrasound-guided versus conventional injection for caudal block in children undergoing infra-umbilical surgeries. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol. 2021;37(2):249-54. [crossref] [PubMed]
Riaz A, Shah ARA, Jafri SAU. Comparison of pediatric caudal block with ultrasound guidance or landmark technique. Anaesthesia, Pain & Intensive Care. 2019 ;23(1).
Dhadwal SS, Bhure A, Bhargava S. Ultrasound guided technique versus landmark technique for caudal epidural block in children: A randomized controlled study. Indian J Clin Anaesth. 2022;9(2):174-78. [crossref]
Koo BN, Hong JY, Kim JE, Kil HK. The effect of flexion on the level of termination of the dural sac in paediatric patients. Anaesthesia. 2009;64(10):1072-76. [crossref] [PubMed]

DOI and Others

DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2022/58669.17104

Date of Submission: Jun 25, 2022
Date of Peer Review: Jul 25, 2022
Date of Acceptance: Aug 17, 2022
Date of Publishing: Oct 01, 2022

• Financial or Other Competing Interests: The techniques was copyrighted with the Government of India (L 91047- 2020).
• Was Ethics Committee Approval obtained for this study? Yes
• Was informed consent obtained from the subjects involved in the study? Yes
• For any images presented appropriate consent has been obtained from the subjects. Yes

• Plagiarism X-checker: Jun 28, 2022
• Manual Googling: Aug 08, 2022
• iThenticate Software: Aug 13, 2022 (10%)

ETYMOLOGY: Author Origin

JCDR is now Monthly and more widely Indexed .
  • Emerging Sources Citation Index (Web of Science, thomsonreuters)
  • Index Copernicus ICV 2017: 134.54
  • Academic Search Complete Database
  • Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)
  • Embase
  • EBSCOhost
  • Google Scholar
  • HINARI Access to Research in Health Programme
  • Indian Science Abstracts (ISA)
  • Journal seek Database
  • Google
  • Popline (reproductive health literature)