Background
According to the German Association of Dental, Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery general anaesthesia (GA) for paediatric patients is a recommended treatment option when local anaesthesia cannot be administered due to low compliance, disabilities or medical conditions [
16,
17]. Even though there has been constant improvement in oral health over the last decades [
19] and a decline in birth rates, number of paediatric patients referral for GA has been constant [
1].
Common complications for GA are postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), hypothermia, airway management complications, laryngo- or bronchospasm and pulmonary oedema [
30]. Duration of GA have been linked to PONV and hypothermia. In Germany the mean duration of dental GA is 1,18 h, in Spain 2,25 h, in the US 55 min and in the UK 1,03 h [
7‐
18]. However, current studies show that duration of GA does not influence PONV as significantly as thought [
20,
32] and hypothermia occurs mostly in infant children younger than 1 year old which are not the target group for dental procedures. In general, only 0.5% of all dental paediatric GA show severe complications which makes GA a safe and routine procedure [
8].
The warning of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) from 2016 that the use of GA and sedation drugs in children younger than 3 years might affect the neural development has led to great medial attention and uncertainties [
4,
21]. Current studies have shown that single brief exposures under 1 hour do not lead to neurocognitive deficits in children [
27] and the factors inducing neurotoxicity are not conclusively determined [
25,
31].
There are numerous studies investigating parental and practitioner’s perception of GA separately. Several studies showed that GA causes feelings of stress, fear and guilt in parents [
2,
3]. Gender aspects also have been discussed in decision making [
14]. Also, practitioner’s acceptance is related to their experience with GA and knowledge [
27,
34].
However, in daily routine it is essential for parents and practitioners to collaborate for the benefit of the child. In this study we aimed to compare parental and practitioner’s acceptance of GA in Germany as no data relating this topic is currently available. Based on these results the doctor-patient relationship could be further improved.
Methods
A cross-sectional study was conducted from February 2020 to February 2021 at a specialized paediatric clinic in Heinsberg, Germany. All the patients have been treated in this clinic.
Prior to the beginning of the study, questionnaires were distributed to 10 parents and 10 dentists to evaluate comprehensibility. Based on the outcome a minimum sample size of 142 participants was calculated. Only parents with children younger than 18 years were included. Parents who were unable to fill out the questionnaire due to language barriers were excluded from this study. Local German practitioners, from private practices and clinics were invited in context of paediatric dentistry conferences and through written invitation. Dental students, dentists without professional practice and orthodontists were excluded. They participated anonymously via online questionnaire due to local COVID-19 restrictions.
A written consent was obtained to collect anonymous data of the participants. The data collected was age and gender of parents/practitioner/child, three questions to prior experience of parents and dentists, two questions related to fear, three questions related to risk evaluation and 10 questions related to indications. Dentists were also asked in which field of dentistry they mainly work.
Questions were worded in German partially in a positive and negative manner to reduce the influence of wording in the decision making. Some questions were repeated in different phrasing to outline either objectional or emotional answers. The questionnaire was translated for publication purposes. Scores relating opinion could be given on a Likert scale of “I agree completely – I partially agree – I partially disagree – I disagree completely” and “I don’t know”. A factor (e.g. fear, prior experience) was seen as fulfilled when answered with “yes” or “I completely/partially agree”. Questionnaires for dentists were identical in regards of content but phrasing were changed when needed e.g. “my child” to “a child” (see
additional files).
Statistical analysis
The data was analysed and presented with IBM SPSS Version v.23.0 (IBM, Armonk, NY, US). Dichotomous answers were given value (1) for yes and (2) for no. Polytomous answers were given categorial values between one and four: (1) I agree completely, (2) I partially agree, (3) I partially disagree, (4) I disagree completely. The answer “I don’t know” or missing data were given the value 0. The mean is given with standard deviation (±SD) when appropriate.
At first descriptive analysis was conducted (histogram, bar chart) for an overview. To analyse significant correlations or differences statistical test were chosen according to the data structure (t-test, Spearman-test, χ2-test, Mann-Whitney-U-test). A p-value of 0.05 was chosen as significant.
Discussion
To the author’s knowledge this is the first study to compare parental and practitioner’s acceptance of GA in Germany. As evidence-based data covering this subject is scarce, this study provides a source of evaluation and optimisation for the doctor-patient relationship. The study is not representative of Germany in statistical terms as the survey was not conducted on a national scale. Still, this study allows to get an insight on this poorly studied subject.
The study group was predominantly female. Every year the ratio of male to female practitioners in dentistry decreases in Germany (1,4:1 in 2010 vs. 1,2:1 in 2019) [
12]. Paediatric dentists which were the majority of participating dentists are mostly female [
26]. Surprisingly, the parent’s group was also mostly female, which highlights that in Germany domestic and medical concerns of the child are still mostly provided by the female caregiver [
10]. The influence of parental gender has been discussed before. In line with our results Boka et al. [
11] showed no influence in Greece while Chen et al. (2010) [
14] showed the opposite for a Chinese population. A larger cohort with more male participants could give better understanding of their decision-making.
Emotional factors influencing parental perception of GA have been discussed in several studies [
2,
3,
6], accordingly we found a significant relationship for parents of younger children (
p = 0.02). Besides that, age of the child had no impact on their parents acceptance, similar results were shown by Chen et al. (2010) [
14]. Keeping these opposing results in mind, we can conclude that subjective aspects of doctor-patient relationship like individual risk evaluation and perception of GA can be altered by emotions. At the same time, parents still might accept GA even though their individual perception is negative. Therefore, one should consider these possibilities and improve the parental and child’s experience by optimizing communication for a better overall outcome.
About 50% of the practitioners related GA to the thought of risks (Table
2). Uncertainty in practitioners can be due to lack of knowledge [
27] or rare administration of GA [
34]. Evaluating the actual experience of dentists by adding questions about the frequency of GA administered by the participants could provide a better insight. Negative media reports about GA after the warning of the FDA also have an impact [
21]. To improve these uncertainties following guidelines and participating in training courses are a valid tool [
28].
Prior experience to GA decreases fear in parents which Ohtawa et al. [
24] has shown while their risk evaluation remains unaffected. As parent’s knowledge significantly correlates with their risk evaluation (
p < 0.00) practitioners should focus on educating their patients in terms of likelihood of complications during or after GA.
In our study, there is consensus in both groups that low compliance and extent of treatment are an indication for GA which Campbell et al.
13 has reported before (2018) [
13]. Also, both groups do not see a proper indication for GA when comparing a surgical to a restorative treatment (Table
3). However, when asked about surgical frenectomy parents preferred GA in comparison to dentists (
p < 0.00) which might be due to the effect of medical terms usage for laypersons [
15]. Therefore, language selection might influence parent’s perception and should be carefully chosen by the practitioner.
Higher acceptance of GA also could be seen for parents in case of acute pain (Table
3) and extended treatment (Fig.
1). Lack of knowledge of invasivity or alternative treatment options are possible reasons [
29,
33]. In support of this conjecture, alternative treatment options like nitrous oxide inhalation sedation have been shown to be more accepted by parents than GA [
11]. Sharing evidence-based recommendations and alternatives with the parents improves doctors-patient communication and their decision making.
Practitioners preferred GA when the patient had a mental disability compared to parents (Table
3). As the indication for GA is depended on the severity of disability [
22,
23], it is questionable how much experience the parental group had with disabled children and as not specified what disability they meant. However, mentally disabled paediatric patients did not show higher complication rates which leaves GA as a reasonable and safe option [
8,
24].
To further investigate these results, the questionnaire should be expanded on evaluation of fear of GA. Also, including factors like income, educational and social status of the participants could give more insight on this topic.
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.