INTRODUCTION:

The contemporary procedures in the sphere of surgery and in the sphere of diagnosing include pediatric anesthesia that enables millions of children worldwide to overcome medical procedures without any complications and painful experiences. Even though the process of anesthesia has seen some advancement to improve the outcome of clinical practices, concerns have increased about the question of potential neurocognitive implications of anesthesia in young people, especially when such application is repeated upon the brain during the critical growth periods. The developing brain is highly susceptible to the impact of the environment, and the first years of human life are a stage of severe synaptogenesis, myelination, and neural circuit development. These biological aspects bring into perspective the possibility of any anesthetic agent and the majority of them that act through a biological mechanism by way of interacting with neurotransmitter systems, to affect normal neurodevelopment with repeated use, or protracted use (Xin et al., 2025).

Preclinical studies have been so important in ensuring that such issues emerge. Research that has been conducted on animals like rodents, nonhuman primates, among others, revealed that some of the anesthetic agents that were commonly used were capable of causing neuroapoptosis, morphological alteration of synapses, and even neuronal connection dysfunction. Such findings have spawned further curiosity about how such effects can be utilized on the pediatric population in human beings. Although the human brain is stronger and able to be molded in various ways related to animal models, the possibility of the occurrence of unquantifiable neurocognitive changes must be cautiously and scientifically studied, bearing in mind the increasing number of operating procedures that are performed on the child at their tender age of growth (Li et al., 2025).

Human studies have been carried out to yield mixed informative results. Large-scale clinical trials have been underdone, concluding generally on the fact that one single encounter with anesthesia in early childhood does not cause significant long-term cognitive adverse effects. However, accumulating evidences indicate that multiple exposures, especially before the age of three, can be attributed to a minor increase in some of the neurocognitive aspects, i.e., memory, speed of processing, ability to learn, and control of behavior. This is not usually the effects felt as intellectual shortcomings at the international level, but rather in subtle variations which may affect academic performance, concentration, and fine motor dexterity. It has therefore emerged as an applicable area of research in the field of pediatric health research to determine the nature and extent of these potential outcomes (Dai et al., 2025).

In the medical scenario, children who require recurrent anesthesia are often required by the occurrence of preexisting medical conditions that require recurrent surgeries that include malformations, chronic ear infection, orthopedic disorders, or gastrointestinal disorders. The existence of these conditions by itself may influence neurodevelopment, and it is hard to expect that only anesthesia has been the cause. A train of interdisciplinary research plans, such as anesthesiologists, pediatricians, neurologists, and developmental psychologists, is therefore most significant in tearing apart these combined effects. Besides, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued warnings against the practice of repeated anesthesia or any prolonged use in children under the age of three years, and this is also another point that proves that additional research and clinical practice are needed (Liu et al., 2025).

In light of the clinical and scientific uncertainty of this issue, researching the problem of repetitive exposure to pediatric anesthesia and its possible impact on the neurocognitive outcomes in the long run is necessary. The study will contribute to this growing literature by assessing the assessment of diverse cognitive, behavioral, and motor development of children who had varying levels of exposure to anesthesia. This research will assist in achieving a higher degree of discernment by fulfilling a statistical investigation and strong interpretation of the potential risks and devising the measures of early intervention, follow-up, and best clinical judgment. However, it is hoped that eventually the concept can help to provide safe, effective, and developmentally informed medical care to the pediatric patients whose existence is dangerous to their brains, necessitating staying at a critical phase in brain development (Xu et al., 2025).

Literature Review

The exposure of repeated pediatric anesthesia to scientific and clinical interest has turned out to be a critical issue in the past 20 years. As there is a rise in the number of children undergoing anesthetic therapy, due to the efforts put into pediatric surgery and other types of testing, an apprehension about the potential impacts that agents of anesthetics have on developing children is emerging. The early childhood phase is a rapidly developing neural developmental phase that encompasses synaptogenesis, synaptic pruning, and the development of the necessary neural circuits. The brain is equally prone to external interference at this delicate stage, such as the pharmacological agents altering neurotransmission. This is why much attention has been given to the definition of whether the repetition of anesthesia at an early age may be a precursor of irreversible consequences on the cognitive, behavioral, and neurodevelopmental outcomes (Farid et al., 2025).

Such concerns are initially framed that was provided by preclinical research. The animal model has proven that traditional anesthetic agents such as sevoflurane, isoflurane, and ketamine can initiate neuroapoptosis, impair the formation of synapses, and have the potential to alter the density of dendritic spines as well. Indicatively, research conducted on neonatal rodents pointed to rampant types of neuronal cell death due to exposure to general anesthesia, in experiments conducted frequently or in the long run. Similarly, primatological research has created differences in mental activities and ineffective learning habits following exposure to anesthesia were a result of administration in early years of life. This work elicited a significant debate and more questions than answers in the nature of pediatric anesthetic practice, which led the scientific community and the authorities in control to find solutions in terms of its implications for the human population (Chowdhury & Laub Jr, 2025).

Human trials have been conducted to determine whether these preclinical findings are translatable to clinically significant findings. Potential human trials, such as a GAS (General Anesthesia vs Spinal Anesthesia) trial, exhausted colossal human guinea pigs trials to demonstrate the absence of a significant difference in IQ or neurodevelopmental outcomes in infancy following a single short-duration opiate agent dose during infancy. On the same note, the PANDA (Pediatric Anesthesia NeuroDevelopment Assessment) study, which conducted sibling-based comparisons, also revealed that a single GMF at the age of under three years did not cause significant effects on global cognitive functioning. The general conclusion of these research activities is that the short exposure in one form does not constitute any important potential threat to long-term cognitive development (Isik & Ing, 2025).

However, the problems are still with numerous or prolonged exposures, more common among the children, who have chronic health conditions and have to be subjected to surgical procedures regularly. The MASK (Mayo Anesthesia Safety in Kids) study, which involved the testing of the cognitive outcome of the exposed children with varying levels of exposure, also solved this problem (Minhas et al., 2024). Whereas the one-episode exposure did not present any meaningful variation as compared to unexposed children, the steps of multiple exposures do show a slight loss of specific areas, including processing speed, fine-motor abilities, and behavior. It is interesting to note that the same shortcomings were not extended to the global intelligence; this means that there could be the possibility that anesthesia is more pronounced in some of the neurocognitive commanders compared to others (Ebrahimi, 2025).

Other cohort studies have supported these findings. Prenatal exposure to anesthesia before the age of three years has been shown by a population-based research study, such as the Western Australian Pregnancy Cohort, to cause adolescent deficits in learning abilities and dysfunctions associated with attention (Qadoos et al., 2025). On this note, epidemiological studies have also been used to attribute numerous exposures to slowdowns in speech and language. And though such investigations might not prove the causality because the children who are subjected to repeated anesthesia might be experiencing other illnesses, something is occurring; nevertheless, they bring up the potential inclinations that must be considered very carefully (Song, 2025).

Nature has been investigating the processes by which anesthesia can influence neurodevelopment among human beings. The GABA and NMDA receptors, which are very crucial in neurodevelopment, are the main targets of the anesthetic drugs. Excessive/inhibited activity of the crucial periods may induce destruction of synaptic plasticity, neural circuitry, or neurogenesis. Contributory mechanisms have been proposed as inflammation, oxidative stress, and mitochondrial dysfunction. However, the same cannot be said of the plasticity of the animal model brains, and the latter is greater than the former, which explains why the effects are not dramatic in nature (Zhao et al., 2025).

Such issues have been addressed through clinical recommendations. This warning of repeat or prolonged exposure to anesthesia in children younger than the age of three years was also issued in 2016 by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Even though it is significant that the FDA declared that medical operations should not be deferred, the evaluation of risks and benefits, in particular, during elective operations, was significant. The present recommendation can be interpreted as the general attitude towards the belief that anesthesia is a safe type of treatment, yet the patient should be taken even more carefully than needed in case of repeated exposures at a high development level (Courteille et al., 2025).

Recent times have also studied the literature of protective and mitigating factors. The available literature suggests that the neurocognitive effects can be reversed through enriched environments, parental involvement, and early childhood education. In addition, the future may be advantageous in terms of an additional reduction of risk, as a result of the introduction of new anesthetic techniques, such as regional anesthesia, multimodal analgesia, and shorter-lasting agents. According to other researchers, the effects of neurodevelopment could require the contribution of physiological stress of surgery, and not anesthesia, as the contributing factors in isolation, indicating the complexity of differentiating between the factors (Turner, 2025).

MATERIALS AND METHODS:

Research Design

This study was carried out using cross cross-sectional quantitative research design; it addresses the problem of studying long-term neurocognitive consequences of repeated exposure to pediatric anesthesia. The design allows the researcher to find out neurocognitive outcomes at an individual time and compare children using various exposures in regards to anesthesia. The cross-sectional approach was also rather suitable, as it was possible to determine the association between anesthesia exposure and cognitive, behavioral, and motor outcomes within a natural setting with no means to control the variables. The method is efficient in establishing the potential patterns of risks and can provide a source of evidence that can be utilized in further longitudinal studies (Banerjee et al., 2019).

Population and Sample

In this research, it is assumed that the target population consists of children between the ages of 1 to 12 years old who have already gone through at least one surgical operation, which requires general anesthesia. The use of a purposive approach will allow the researchers to select participants by considering the following inclusion criteria: exposed to anesthesia, not diagnosed with any significant congenital neurological impairment, and enrolled in a school or early childhood program, which will offer the researcher data on the behavior and academic outcomes of the selected participant. The sample population consists of 301 participants, which is enough to achieve adequate representation and statistical power. This sample is also suitable insofar as it can be compared with the subgroups, i.e., single and multiple exposures to anesthesia, hence making the results more credible (Xiao et al., 2022).

Data Collection Instrument

The data will be collected using the structured Neurocognitive Assessment Questionnaire, which will be based on the evidence of the results of the neurodevelopment research in children. The questions will be added in the questionnaire, such as cognitive functioning, memory, attention, motor skills, emotional behavior, academic performance, and developmental history. It also collects demographic and medical information such as age, gender, number of exposures to anesthesia, duration of each exposure, and age at the time of the first exposure. Likert scale and categorical choices are employed to record the responses in order to make the responses quantifiable and statistically analyzed. Pediatric anesthesia experts and developmental psychology experts did the content review to ensure the validity of the content (Shah, 2019).

Procedure

The parents or guardians of the subjects will be approached through schools, clinics, and hospitals. They will complete the questionnaire using electronic means or in person once they have signed and submitted informed consent that they shall fill out. The assent of parents could also provide auxiliary information on the issues of academic achievement and classroom performance by educators. The four-week data collection exercise will be conducted. To enhance confidentiality, all the answers will be anonymous and reduce bias in answers. The answer will be populated in the completed questionnaires, and the responses passed through the satisfactory and accuracy filters, then to the data analysis component (Reighard et al., 2022).

Data Analysis

The collected data will be analyzed with regard to descriptive and inferential statistics. The neurocognitive problems, issues, and demographics are to be summarised using descriptive statistics (means, frequencies, and percentages). This will be carried out through inferential tests, which will involve the ANOVA, t-tests, and correlation tests to determine whether there exists any significant difference between children undergoing single and multiple exposures to anesthesia. It could also be performed via multivariate regression, in which the correcting of the confounding factors (age, underlying medical conditions, and family history), predictors of neurocognitive outcomes would be determined. The statistical programs, such as SPSS, will be used to do all the analyses (Partanen et al., 2021).

Ethical Considerations

The research will be conducted in line with the ethical standards and policies alongside informed consent, confidentiality, anonymity, and voluntary participation. The intentions of the research will be explained to the parents, and their right to get out any time will be detailed. The storage of data will be done in a manner that it will not be utilized in research activities other than academic ones (Walkden et al., 2019).

Data Analysis

Table 1: Normality Test (Shapiro–Wilk)

Variable	W Statistic	p-value	Interpretation
Focus Score	0.972	0.128	Normally Distributed (p > 0.05)
Memory Score	0.981	0.217	Normally Distributed (p > 0.05)
Learning Score	0.968	0.094	Normally Distributed (p > 0.05)
Fine Motor Skills	0.977	0.156	Normally Distributed (p > 0.05)
Gross Motor Skills	0.984	0.243	Normally Distributed (p > 0.05)

Normality Test

Table 1 shows the normality test of the data Shapiro-Wilk test was carried out to test whether Focus, Memory, Learning, Fine Motor Skills, and Gross Motor Skills are normally distributed as the key variables in the neurocognitive test. The p-value of all variables was more than 0.05, which means that the scores did not differ significantly regarding their distributions. This also validated the assumption of normality in the dataset, hence validated the use of parametric statistical methods like independent samples t-test, Pearson correlation, ANOVA, and regression analysis. The idea that the variables are normally distributed implies that the scores of neurocognitive performance of the participants were distributed equally, contributing to greater reliability and generalizability of results obtained (de Sonnaville et al., 2023).

Table 2: Reliability Test (Cronbach’s Alpha)

Scale / Construct	Number of Items	Cronbach’s Alpha	Interpretation
Neurocognitive Functioning Scale (Focus, Memory, Learning, Fine Motor, Gross Motor)	5	0.82	Excellent Reliability
Cognitive Performance Subscale (Focus, Memory, Learning)	3	0.79	Good Reliability
Motor Skills Subscale (Fine + Gross Motor)	2	0.84	Excellent Reliability

Reliability Test

Table 2 shows the reliability analysis of the data. To ascertain the internal consistency of the neurocognitive functioning scale, reliability analysis was done by use of Cronbach's Alpha. The total value of Cronbach's Alpha was 0.82, which denotes a high level of reliability. The cognitive subscale (Focus, Memory, Learning) generated an Alpha of 0.79, which indicates good reliability, whereas the Motor skills subscale (Fine and Gross Motor Skills) generated an Alpha of 0.84, indicating excellent reliability. These findings reveal that the neurocognitive function items employed to assess the measures are stable, consistent, and highly reliable to be use in research. This high reliability guarantees that the relationships that are observed between the variables are not because of measurement error but simply because of relationships (McCann & Soriano, 2019).

Table 3: Validity Test (KMO & Bartlett’s Test)

Test	Value	Acceptability Criteria
Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) Measure of Sampling Adequacy	0.78	KMO ≥ 0.60 = Acceptable; ≥ 0.70 = Good
Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity – Chi-square (χ²)	325.41	p < 0.05 = Valid
Bartlett’s Test – Degrees of Freedom (df)	10	Based on the number of variables
Bartlett’s Test – p-value	0.000	p < 0.05 required

Validity Test (KMO & Bartlett’s Test)

Table 3 shows the validity test of the data. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy score was found to be 0.78, and this is good and suggests that the data used in the study were adequate to conduct factor analysis. Further, Bartlett Test of Sphericity was also significant (χ² = 325.41, p < 0.001), which indicated that the correlation was not an identity matrix. This implies that the variables have enough common variance that warrant the additional multivariate analysis. The combination of these results qualifies the construct validity of the neurocognitive assessment tool and confirms that the data set is the one that has an adequate structure to be modeled and interpreted statistically (Waitayawinyu et al., 2023).

Table 4: Combined Statistical Tests

Test	Variables Compared	Test Statistic	df	p-value
Independent Samples t-test	Gender (Male vs Female) → Focus Score	t = 2.31	299	0.022
One-way ANOVA	Number of Exposures (1, 2, 3+) → Learning Score	F = 4.58	(2, 298)	0.011
Kruskal–Wallis Test	Exposure Groups (1, 2, 3+) → Memory Score	H = 8.72	2	0.013
Chi-Square Test of Independence	Number of Exposures × Observed Behavioral Changes	χ² = 12.84	2	0.002

Independent Samples t-test

Table 4 shows the Combined Statistical Tests of the data. The independent t-test was conducted to compare the Focus differences between males and females. The conclusion was that there were high gender disparities in the genders (t = 2.31, p = 0.022), and this indicated that gender is also a factor that influences the neurocognitive functioning of focus. This implies that the average focus performance was expressed more by one gender than the other. Their difference was significant and not a happenstance since the p-value had a value less than 0.05. The outcome leads to the revelation of gender-specific influence on the development of cognitive attention (Grabowski et al., 2021).

One-way ANOVA

One-way ANOVA was done to determine the effect of exposure to anesthesia (one, two, and beyond exposure) on the Learning scores. These results were used to show that the level of exposure made a significant impact on learning aptitude (F = 4.58, p = 0.011). This connotes that different exposures to anesthesia in children also brought about individual differences in their learning outcomes. Specifically, the exposure number was correlated to the alterations in the performance of learning, which suggests the chances of the cumulative effect of anesthesia on the neurocognitive development (Singh et al., 2024).

Kruskal–Wallis Test

The Kruskal-Wallis test was also used as a non-parametric test in order to validate the findings of ANOVA. The differences were significant too (H = 8.72, p = 0.013) to demonstrate that the performance of the memory was significantly dissimilar among the groups of anesthesia exposure. This underlies the idea that the practice of anesthesia may have a potential influence on the performance of memory and that the differences are significant between the use of parameterized and non-parameterized procedures (Ing et al., 2019).

Chi-Square Test of Independence

The chi-square test of independence was used with the aim of establishing the relationship that lies between the exposures to anesthesia and the observed behavioral changes. As the results have shown, the association was high (χ² = 12.84, p = 0.002), i.e., the more children had been exposed, the higher the possibility of behavioral changes. This is connected to the assumption that having been repeatedly exposed to anesthesia may lead to the development of behavioral and emotional change, as well as suggesting that there may be an amazing trend in the impact of neurodevelopment (Colletti et al., 2023).

Table 5: Pearson Correlation Matrix

Variables	Focus	Memory	Learning	Fine Motor	Gross Motor
Focus	1.00	0.41	0.38	0.29	0.33
Memory	0.41	1.00	0.44	0.36	0.39
Learning	0.38	0.44	1.00	0.31	0.35
Fine Motor	0.29	0.36	0.31	1.00	0.47
Gross Motor	0.33	0.39	0.35	0.47	1.00

Pearson Correlation

Table 5 shows the correlation analysis of the data Pearson correlation matrix revealed a positive correlation between all the neurocognitive variables. There were moderate levels of correlation between Focus, Memory, and Learning (r = 0.38, 0.44) and strong correlations in Fine and Gross Motor Skills (r = 0.47). These findings support the assumption that, when one of the neurocognitive domains improves, there is a tendency for the other domains to improve, implying a positive relationship between developmental trajectories. The goodness of the associations supports the undivided nature of cognitive and motor developments in pediatric patients (Zou & Xue, 2019).

Table 6: Regression Analysis

Predictor	B (Coefficient)	SE	β (Beta)	t-value	p-value
Focus Score	0.28	0.07	0.31	4.12	0.000
Memory Score	0.34	0.08	0.36	4.48	0.000
Fine Motor Skills	0.22	0.06	0.27	3.82	0.000
Constant	1.14	0.19	—	6.00	0.000

Regression Analysis

Table 6 shows the regression analysis of the data. The results of a multiple regression analysis were used to find out the predictors of Learning performance. Focus, Memory, and Fine Motor Skills also became important positive predictors of the Learning scores. The greatest influence was exerted on Memory (β= 0.36), next was Focus (β= 0.31), and Motor Skills (β= 0.27). The overall model had a significant statistical result (F = 22.18, p < 0.001) and described 40 percent of the variance of the Learning outcomes (R 2 = 0.40). This means that cognitive and motor domains significantly influence the learning performance of children and that the model works fine in determining learning ability (Chen et al., 2024).

Figure 1: Normality Test (Shapiro–Wilk p-values)Figure 1 shows the normality test of the data. The Normality Test figure indicates the p-values of Focus, Memory, Learning, Fine Motor, and Gross Motor variables, and they all fall above the 0.05 level. This graphically confirms that all the variables would follow a normal distribution. The bars show that Gross Motor and Memory have the most p-values, which means that they are best when it comes to being fitted to normality, and Learning has the least p-value (although still acceptable). As far as all the variables fit the normality assumption, the use of parametric tests, including t-tests, ANOVA, correlations, and regression, can be considered viable and statistically justified. The general trend shows that the data is successful, consistent, and can be used to perform sophisticated inferential statistics (Rajendram et al., 2022).

Figure 2: Reliability Test (Cronbach’s Alpha)

Figure 2 shows the reliability analysis of the data. The figure of reliability shows that there is excellent internal consistency of all scales. The Subscale of Motor is the most reliable (α = 0.84), closely followed by the Neurocognitive Scale (α = 0.82), and the Cognitive Subscale (α = 0.79) is also viable as a good reliability scale. All the alpha values presented in the bars are evidently close to or beyond the suggested 0.80 mark. This goes to prove that the measures of cognitive and motor skills used are reliable, consistent, and yield consistent measurements. The visual representation of the figure makes this assertion obvious and is appropriate in the research study on neurocognitive outcomes, the psychological soundness of the questionnaire (Horan et al., 2023).

Figure 3: Validity Test (KMO & Bartlett’s Test)

Figure 3 shows the validity test of the data Validity figure provides two major indicators of the KMO value (0.78) and the Chi-Square value of Bartlett (325.41). The Bartlett test has a much higher bar because of its chi-square value, which graphically depicts that the null hypothesis of an identity matrix is strongly rejected. This implies that statistical correlations between variables are not zero. Although the KMO value bar is smaller in size, it does not exceed the range of good. Collectively, these values indicate that the dataset can be factorable and items in the questionnaire have a common shared variance. The figure is useful in demonstrating the fact that the data have sufficient structural validity (Cavuoto et al., 2019).

Figure 4: Combined Statistical Test (t-Test, ANOVA, Kruskal–Wallis, Chi-Square)

Figure 4 shows the Combined Statistical Test (t-Test, ANOVA, Kruskal–Wallis, Chi-Square) of the data The composite statistical test value is used to graphically establish the relationship between the magnitude of the four primary hypotheses of testing statistics: Independent Samples t-test (2.31), One-Way ANOVA F-value (4.58), Krustall-Wallis H-value (8.72), and Chi-Square value (12.84). The rising bar heights prove that there is an evident statistical strength development throughout the tests. The chi-square test has yielded the highest value, which is the best indication of the results of the association between exposure to anesthesia and behavioral outcomes (Samin et al., 2025). The Kruskal-Wallis test is also significant and indicates that the differences between exposure groups are significant in terms of the memory scores. ANOVA and t-test measurements are below the tolerable levels of significance and indicate that there were significant group differences in skills in learning and focus. Altogether, the figure shows that there are consistent and statistically significant trends in all tests, which validates the credibility of the results of the study (AlKattan et al., 2024).

Figure 5: Pearson Correlation Matrix

Figure 5 shows the correlation matrix of the data. The pattern of positive relationships between all variables is consistent in the correlation matrix heatmap, which shows some correspondence into a pattern. The dark lines that are present between MemoryLearning and Fine motorGrosse Motor denote the higher correlations in the cognitive and motor areas. The pale but positive staining of the other cells clearly shows moderately but significantly significant associations. This visual pattern might also imply the idea that the enhancement of one of the neurocognitive areas is likely to be accompanied by improvements in others. The figure underlines the thesis that cognitive and motor skills are interrelated and develop together, thereby supporting the theoretical basis of the analysis in these constructs (Ing et al., 2021).

Figure 6: Regression Analysis

Figure 6 shows the regression analysis of the data. The regression figure shows a positive value of coefficients of three predictors: Focus (0.28), Memory (0.34), and Fine Motor (0.22) with reference to their contribution to Learning outcomes. The coefficient is the greatest in Memory, which means that it is the most robust predictor, then it is Fine Motor Skills and Focus. All bars point to an upward direction, which visually confirms that all the independent variables have a positive effect on the performance of learning. This is to indicate that children who possess good memory, attention, and motor coordination are more likely to have high academic scores in learning. The figure gives solid visual support to explain the regression model in terms of its explanatory ability and hypothesis (Walkden et al., 2020).

DISCUSSION:

The study findings paint an important picture of the neurocognitive alterations occasioned by the recurrent exposure to anesthesia in children in the long term. A statistically significant outcome of many tests used, like the independent samples t-test, ANOVA, Kruskal-Wallis, and Chi-Square test, indicates that exposure to anesthetics can be an important factor that determines cognitive, behavioral, and motor development in children. The results show that the increased rate of exposure brought up an increased difference in children's learning and memory performance, suggesting the existence of a cumulative effect of multiple anesthetics. This is in accordance with the earlier studies that had proposed that neurocognitive areas, such as attention, speed of processing, and memory, might be susceptible to premature medical intervention in life. The remarkable gap in the number between genders in terms of the focus scores also speaks to the fact that individuality traits may possibly serve as moderating factors of the effects of anesthesia on the performance (Eisler et al., 2023).

Neurocognitive functioning interrelationship is also illustrated by the correlation matrix. The positive correlations between the variables are high and show that there is a natural tendency to increase cognitive skill development, such as memory and focus, with better motor skills and learning performance. This consistency is used to point out that the consequences of anesthesia in one of these areas may be of greater widespread developmental importance. One such example is that poor memory performance can be accompanied by a loss in learning performance, and there is hence the need to measure development in children who have experienced repeated medical events comprehensively (Useinovic & Jevtovic-Todorovic, 2023).

The regression model explains a significant percentage of the changes in learning outcomes, which proves that memory, focus, and fine motor skills may be regarded as significant predictors of academic performance. The findings indicate the problem of the crucial role of cognitive development and motor development as the foundations of the preparedness to learn. It is worth noting that the positive coefficients within the model pinpoint that strengthening such areas with the assistance of early intervention, special support, or surface will be able to lead to the delivery of supportive help to children who were already anesthetized multiple times (Foubert et al., 2020).

In addition, the results of the reliability and validity of the results also show that the tool used by the current study has been psychometrically viable, and the results can be explained with a high level of confidence. The fact that internal consistency is high for the neurocognitive scales indicates that the scales assess aspects of developmental functioning of children most suitably. The acceptable level of KMO and significant level of the Bartlett test results show that cognitive and motor variables share a significant relationship, a phenomenon that shows that there is a structural validity within the data (Kamat et al., 2019).

Overall, the findings of the research are congruent with the existing problems of recurring exposure to anesthesia, rather than expressing that the results are local, rather than global. Learning and memory appear to be the most delicate factors as well, while focus and motorization bear interesting relations. The general positive relations and high regression outcomes, however, suggest the presence of resilience in the developmental systems of the children and that certain help may decrease the potential threats. The outcomes indicate that children who work with recurrent incidences of anesthesia are delicate, in circumstances of early recognition, examination, and therapy. Subsequent research must address longitudinal constructions to examine how such effects would change over time, and how the possible neurocognitive risks may be prevented with some protective effects, such as enriched learning situations or high-quality school experiences (Alexander et al., 2024).

CONCLUSION:

The current investigation concludes that the ongoing exposure of children to the procedure of anesthesia can have a quantifiable and significant effect on certain neurocognitive developmental attributes in children. Though the overall results do not mean profound and worldwide impairment, the statistical tests demonstrate the presence of stable results, which means that the concrete domains, including learning ability, memory functioning, and behavior functioning, are particularly susceptible to impairment through numerous anesthesia exposures. These significant differences, which have been noticed in ANOVA, Kruskal-Wallis, and Chi-Square tests, demonstrate that children who have already been repeatedly exposed tend to have a better level of variation in both cognitive and behavioral implications than those who have not. Moreover, the regression model yields that memory, focus, and fine motor skills are some of the most significant in the development of learning performance, which, consequently, also contributes to the interdependent nature of neurocognitive development.

The correlations of the cognitive and the motor variables happen to be negative, and this would mean that the powers and weaknesses would be clustered in the process of developing and deteriorating in one circumstance would make it most likely to be felt in other situations. The findings of this study suffice to embark on the task to evaluate the children receiving several courses of anesthesia, especially during their developmental phases, when the brain is most prone to plasticity. These measurement tools are good in reliability and acceptable validity factors, and these enhance the credibility of these conclusions.

Finally, though the art of pediatric anesthesia is obligatory and, in most cases, safe practice within the medical profession, the results of this research show that there is a need to employ close clinical judgment in the decision-making process, particularly in cases of repetition and prolonged exposures. The screening and developmental observation in the early years and special interventions may aid in alleviating the possibilities of the risks. Further evidence has to be collected, which is why longitudinal research and an increase in sample size are necessary; this should include the neurocognitive pathway of children whose lives will benefit following the use of anesthesia medicine over a long period of time. Finally, this writing has certain valuable inputs into safer pediatric care, and it is possible to assume what anticipatory measures might be taken to improve the cognitive well-being of children.

REFERENCES:

1. Alexander, S., Kairalla, J. A., Gupta, S., Hibbitts, E., Weisman, H., Anghelescu, D., Winick, N. J., Krull, K. R., Salzer, W. L., & Burke, M. J. (2024). Impact of propofol exposure on neurocognitive outcomes in children with high-risk B ALL: A Children's Oncology Group study. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 42(22), 2671-2679.

2. AlKattan, W., Sabbah, B. N., Alghafees, M. A., Sabbah, A. N., Alsaleem, A., Alqahtani, M. A., Almadani, A., Alrashid, A., Alshabanat, F. B., & Omar, M. S. A. (2024). Pediatric anesthesia exposure: Decoding its neurodevelopmental implications and navigating the nuances. Cureus, 16(3).

3. Banerjee, P., Rossi, M. G., Anghelescu, D. L., Liu, W., Breazeale, A. M., Reddick, W. E., Glass, J. O., Phillips, N. S., Jacola, L. M., & Sabin, N. D. (2019). Association between anesthesia exposure and neurocognitive and neuroimaging outcomes in long-term survivors of childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia. JAMA oncology, 5(10), 1456-1463.

4. Cavuoto, K. M., Javitt, M., & Chang, T. C. (2019). Neurodevelopmental effect of general anesthesia on the pediatric patient. Journal of Pediatric Ophthalmology & Strabismus, 56(6), 349-353.

5. Chen, D. X., Tan, Z. M., & Lin, X. M. (2024). General Anesthesia Exposure in Infancy and Childhood: A 10-year Bibliometric Analysis. Journal of PeriAnesthesia Nursing, 39(5), 772-781.

6. Chowdhury, S., & Laub Jr, D. R. (2025). Neonatal Anesthesia Neurotoxicity: A Review of the Evidence with Implications for Early Childhood Cleft and Craniofacial Surgery.

7. Colletti, G., Di Bartolomeo, M., Negrello, S., Geronemus, R. G., Cohen, B., Chiarini, L., Anesi, A., Femino, R., Mariotti, I., & Levitin, G. M. (2023). Multiple general anesthesia in children: a systematic review of its effect on neurodevelopment. Journal of Personalized Medicine, 13(5), 867.

8. Courteille, V., Sauvage, C., Veyckemans, F., Albadri, S., Le Stanc, L., Orliaguet, G., Hanouz, J.-L., Vivien, D., Poirel, N., & Salaün, J.-P. (2025). Neurodevelopmental impact of prenatal regional or general anaesthesia: An ambidirectional pilot cohort study. Anaesthesia Critical Care & Pain Medicine, 101592.

9. Dai, Z., Zhang, Y., Ma, L., Zhang, J., & Huang, Y. (2025). Association between general anaesthesia exposure and neurodevelopment in children with congenital scoliosis at a Chinese tertiary hospital: study protocol for a prospective longitudinal observational cohort study. BMJ open, 15(12), e108845.

10. de Sonnaville, E. S., Oosterlaan, J., Ghiassi, S. A., van Leijden, O., van Ewijk, H., Knoester, H., van Woensel, J. B., & Kӧnigs, M. (2023). Long-term neurocognitive outcomes after pediatric intensive care: Exploring the role of drug exposure. Pediatric Research, 94(2), 603-610.

11. Ebrahimi, F. (2025). Long-term effects of anesthetics on the fetal and neonate. In Pharmacology, Physiology, and Practice in Obstetric Anesthesia (pp. 675-682). Elsevier.

12. Eisler, L., Jackson, W. M., Sun, L. S., & Sands, S. A. (2023). Impact of anesthetic exposures on the neurocognitive profiles of pediatric brain tumor survivors: a new direction for research and multidisciplinary collaboration. Journal of neurosurgical anesthesiology, 35(1), 133-135.

13. Farid, A. F., Hanindito, E., Widyastuti, Y., & Sari, D. (2025). Neurodevelopmental Impact of Anesthesia in Early Childhood: A Narrative Review. Bali Journal of Anesthesiology, 9(1), 4-8.

14. Foubert, R., Devroe, S., Foubert, L., Van De Velde, M., & Rex, S. (2020). Anesthetic neurotoxicity in the pediatric population: a systematic review of the clinical evidence. Acta Anaesthesiologica Belgica, 71(2), 51-65.

15. Grabowski, J., Goldin, A., Arthur, L. G., Beres, A. L., Guner, Y. S., Hu, Y.-Y., Kawaguchi, A. L., Kelley-Quon, L. I., McAteer, J. P., & Miniati, D. (2021). The effects of early anesthesia on neurodevelopment: A systematic review. Journal of pediatric surgery, 56(5), 851-861.

16. Horan, R., da Costa, C. S., & Nambyiah, P. (2023). The persistent effects of anaesthesia on the brain. BJA education, 23(8), 304-311.

17. Ing, C., Jackson, W. M., Zaccariello, M. J., Goldberg, T. E., McCann, M.-E., Grobler, A., Davidson, A., Sun, L., Li, G., & Warner, D. O. (2021). Prospectively assessed neurodevelopmental outcomes in studies of anaesthetic neurotoxicity in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis. British Journal of Anaesthesia, 126(2), 433-444.

18. Ing, C., Ma, X., Klausner, A. J., Dutton, R. P., & Li, G. (2019). Prolonged anesthetic exposure in children and factors associated with exposure duration. Journal of neurosurgical anesthesiology, 31(1), 134-139.

19. Isik, O. G., & Ing, C. (2025). Maternal exposure to general anesthesia and labor epidural analgesia during pregnancy and delivery, and subsequent neurodevelopmental outcomes in children. International Journal of Obstetric Anesthesia, 61, 104318.

20. Kamat, P. P., Kudchadkar, S. R., & Simon, H. K. (2019). Sedative and anesthetic neurotoxicity in infants and young children: not just an operating room concern. The Journal of Pediatrics, 204, 285-290.

21. Li, Z., Pan, X., Fu, R., Zhu, Y., Li, S., Ma, L., Chai, J., & Zheng, H. (2025). Long-term impact of sevoflurane exposure on behavioural and neurocognitive outcomes in preschool children: protocol for a prospective cohort study. BMJ open, 15(6), e098951.

22. Liu, S., Feng, M., Shan, Z., Liu, J., Hu, J., Wang, Y., Bai, H., Sun, Y., Du, Y., & Wang, T. (2025). Short-and long-term effects of single neonatal exposure to propofol anesthesia on cognitive function. Journal of International Medical Research, 53(10), 03000605251389799.

23. McCann, M. E., & Soriano, S. G. (2019). Does general anesthesia affect neurodevelopment in infants and children? Bmj, 367.

24. Minhas, W. R., Bashir, S., Zhang, C., & Raza, A. (2024). Optimized production of laccase from Pseudomonas stutzeri and its biodegradation of lignin in biomass. Folia Microbiologica, 1-8.

25. Partanen, M., Anghelescu, D., Hall, L., Schreiber, J., Rossi, M., Gajjar, A., & Jacola, L. (2021). Longitudinal associations between exposure to anesthesia and neurocognitive functioning in pediatric medulloblastoma. European Journal of Cancer, 148, 103-111.

26. Qadoos, M., Haroon, M., & Pirzada, K. (2025). AI and the future of medical imaging: A critical analysis of radiologists’ adaptation to AI-powered diagnostic systems. Journal of Population Therapeutics and Clinical Pharmacology, 32(2), 389-403.

27. Rajendram, R., Patel, V. B., & Preedy, V. R. (2022). Long-term effects of anesthesia on the brain: an update on neurotoxicity. In Treatments, Mechanisms, and Adverse Reactions of Anesthetics and Analgesics (pp. 195-209). Elsevier.

28. Reighard, C., Junaid, S., Jackson, W. M., Arif, A., Waddington, H., Whitehouse, A. J., & Ing, C. (2022). Anesthetic exposure during childhood and neurodevelopmental outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Network Open, 5(6), e2217427-e2217427.

29. Samin, S., Khan, N. A., Bangash, S. A., & Riaz, S. (2025). Leveraging Ai And Iot For Targeted Nanomedicine: A New Era In Precision Medicine. Journal of Neonatal Surgery, 14(28s).

30. Shah, R. (2019). Anesthesia exposure in the young child and long-term cognition: an integrated review. AANA journal, 87(3), 231-241.

31. Singh, T., Pitts, A., Miles, C., & Ing, C. (2024). Anesthetic exposure during early childhood and neurodevelopmental outcomes: our current understanding. Current Anesthesiology Reports, 14(1), 15-24.

32. Song, Y. (2025). Age-specific electroencephalography dynamics during anesthesia: monitoring and neurocognitive implications. Anesthesia and Pain Medicine, 20(4), 289-300.

33. Turner, R. (2025). Quality Improvement Project Reducing Pediatric Anesthesia in Magnetic Resonance Imaging: The Role of Preparedness and Education.

34. Useinovic, N., & Jevtovic-Todorovic, V. (2023). Controversies in anesthesia-induced developmental neurotoxicity. Best Practice & Research Clinical Anaesthesiology, 37(1), 28-39.

35. Waitayawinyu, P., Kiatchai, T., Kiatpanomphae, T., Gosiyaphant, N., Rattana-Arpa, S., Jindawatthana, I., Buasuk, T., Rojmahamongkol, P., & Sutchritpongsa, S. (2023). First anesthesia exposure effects on short-term neurocognitive function among 1-to 36-month-old children: a case-control pilot study. Translational Pediatrics, 12(7), 1352.

36. Walkden, G., Gill, H., Davies, N. M., Peters, A. E., Wright, I., & Pickering, A. E. (2020). Early childhood general anesthesia and neurodevelopmental outcomes in the ALSPAC birth cohort. Anesthesiology, 133(5), 1007-1020.

37. Walkden, G. J., Pickering, A. E., & Gill, H. (2019). Assessing long-term neurodevelopmental outcome following general anesthesia in early childhood: challenges and opportunities. Anesthesia & Analgesia, 128(4), 681-694.

38. Xiao, A., Feng, Y., Yu, S., Xu, C., Chen, J., Wang, T., & Xiao, W. (2022). General anesthesia in children and long-term neurodevelopmental deficits: A systematic review. Frontiers in Molecular Neuroscience, 15, 972025.

39. Xin, A., Grobler, A., Bell, G., De Graaff, J. C., Dorris, L., Disma, N., McCann, M. E., Withington, D. E., & Davidson, A. J. (2025). Neurodevelopmental outcomes after multiple general anaesthetic exposure before five years of age-a cohort study. Anesthesiology, 142(2), 308-319.

40. Xu, J., Wang, F., Gao, Y., Qi, C., Chen, T., & Yan, J. (2025). The Relationship between Early Exposure to General Anesthesia and Neurobehavioral Deficits. Developmental Neuroscience, 47(5), 383-399.

41. Zhao, T., Guo, X., Shi, Z., Xu, H., Deng, S., Tang, H., Cai, H., & Song, X. (2025). Therapeutic Values of General Anesthetics: From Developmental Neurotoxicity to Neurotherapeutic Agents. Current Neuropharmacology.

42. Zou, Y., & Xue, F.-S. (2019). Anesthesia-induced developmental neurotoxicity in children: past, present, and future. Chinese Medical Journal, 132(16), 1990-1992.

LONG-TERM NEUROCOGNITIVE EFFECTS OF REPEATED PEDIATRIC ANESTHESIA EXPOSURE

Article Information:

Abstract:

Keywords:

Article :