There is controversy surrounding the association between caudal block and complication rates after hypospadias repair. Conflicting results have been reported mostly from single-center, low volume studies and those that did not include relevant variables.
We hypothesized that caudal block is not associated with increased rates of reoperation after primary repair and is associated with more complex hypospadias surgery.
The Clinical Practice Solutions Center database was queried to identify patients who received a primary hypospadias repair between 2009 and 2010. Primary hypospadias repair was further categorized as meatal advancement and glanduloplasty, distal, one-stage proximal, or one-stage perineal repair. Anesthesia coding was evaluated to identify those who received a caudal block. Any revision surgery was captured between 2009 and 2019 and the types of revision surgeries were identified. Variables such as caudal block, age, insurance type, surgeon volume, and surgeon years in practice were analyzed with mixed effects multiple logistic regression models.
The dataset query identified 3343 pediatric males who had primary hypospadias repair. The procedures were performed by 50 surgeons at 27 hospitals. Primary surgeries included meatal advancement and glanduloplasty (23%), distal (69%), proximal (6.9%), and perineal repairs (1%). Caudal block was administered to 42% of patients. Utilization of caudal block was not associated with type of primary surgery (p = 0.21). Adjusting for all other variables, increased patient age was associated with decreased usage of caudal block (p < 0.001). Analysis did not demonstrate a statistically significant association between utilization of caudal block with rates of revision surgery.
This large, multi-institution study demonstrates that the use of caudal block was not associated with more complex hypospadias surgery nor statistically significantly associated with increased rates of revision surgery after primary hypospadias repair.

Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.