Neurodevelopment abnormalities in ADHD cases have been described well. Studies have found that in these cases, hypofunction of N-methyl d-aspartate receptors induce inattention. Prefrontal cortex (PFC) is responsible for thoughts, analysis and regulating behavioral, emotion focus and attention. PFC helps to predict the outcomes of a behavior and determining right from wrong. This vital part of the brain is unregulated in ADHD cases and dendritic spine density in PFC significantly change (
14). According to our search, it was the first study in Iran evaluating the association between early GA exposure and later behavioral disorders. Indeed, increasing interest in this topic as a big concern judged by numerous published articles, has not been observed in our country and the limited available studies indicate the lack of enough attention to the issue (
15,
16). The main finding of this work was that children exposed to anesthetic agents in the first four years of age, had a higher incidence of ADHD than those without this history. In other words we supported previous studies which indicated the neurotoxicity of anesthetic drugs in developing brain. We found that the age of receiving GA, male gender, the history of receiving GA and the number of exposures were significantly associated with ADHD. However they could not be a strong predictor for this behavioral disorder. After our data was stratified by sex, we found a strong association between ADHD and male gender. Searching the current literature, some of them supported our findings and some other were in contrast. In line with our paper, Tsai et al. (
17) in a birth cohort study reported that exposure to GA before the age of three years had an increased risk for later ADHD. DiMaggio et al. (
18) in two retrospective studies found that exposure to GA in the first 3 years of age increased the risk of developmental or behavioral abnormalities. Ing et al. (
19) in 2012 indicated that children who were exposed to GA in the first three years of age showed more language deficits than unexposed ones. Furthermore studies reported that neonates delivered by cesarean section under GA were more likely to develop behavioral deficits compared with those delivered vaginally without anesthesia (
20). Flick et al. (
21) 2011 demonstrated that early exposure to GA could be an independent risk for neurological disorders affecting both learning and behavior abilities. In contrast to our findings, in a pilot study Kalkman et al. (
22) reported that there was a non-significant association between exposed children and non-exposed to GA before 24 months regarding behavioral disorders. Bartels et al. (
23) did not report the mentioned association either. O’leary J et al. (
24), reported that children who received GA before age 5 to 6 were at a higher risk of early neurodevelopment vulnerability and long term adverse outcomes. However they found that multiple exposure or age under 2 were not recognized as additional risks. Sprung et al. (
11) studied the association between GA before 2 years of age and the development of ADHD. They found that children, who underwent repeated surgeries under GA, had a higher risk of development of ADHD. Opposite to this work, Ko et al. (
25) in a retrospective matched-cohort study in Taiwan reported that there was no association between early life anesthesia exposure before three years of age and ADHD. Creagh et al. (
26) also did not observe any positive correlation. Bong et al. (
27) in a retrospective study found that the incidence of learning disability among children with a history of GA exposure before one year was 4.5 times greater than that of not exposed peers. As discussed above, a discrepancy among the findings of human studies is observed which could be justified by the differences regarding socioeconomic status, genetics, familial conditions, parenteral characteristics such as age, comorbidities, dosage and timing of GA, all of which might affect the results. Indeed the reason of this disagreement could be differences in study design such as choice of study population, sample size, the length of follow-ups, different assessment tools (e.g. intelligence, academic success, behavioral disorders) (
28). The definition of ADHD and case selection strategies might be different among studies. In Sprung et al.’s study (
11) the majority of cases came from schools, that had referred the children for behavioral problems and a questionnaire was filled out by teacher or parent. Tasi et al. (
17) used a nationwide population-based sample and in our research we had a regional participation. Furthermore studies which select cases based on ICD-9-CM code 314.01 that presents a combined type of disease, may miss ADHD cases who clinically express hyperactivity or inattention, not both of them. In Tasi et al.’s study (
17) with ICD-9-CM 314 a broader criterion was considered for ADHD diagnosis. Furthermore; selected exposure period was not the same among studies. Sprung considered this time before the age of two years (
11). Tasi et al. (
17) before 3 and in our study it was extended to before 4. The other noticeable factor was duration of follow-up periods. In Ko et al. (
25) study children aged 5 - 10 years were focused on. Therefore cases diagnosed after 10 years of age could be missed. Due to different interpretations among observational studies and the multifactorial nature of the mentioned criteria, focusing on other modalities such as biomarkers and neuroimaging might provide more reliable results. There are still several unanswered questions: anesthetic drugs, doses, anesthesia duration, age at exposure and proper evaluation criteria. We acknowledge that to achieve more meaningful results, cohort studies with an adequate sample size is required. Surely, neuro behavioral disorders are multifactorial and similar to other supporting studies we cannot claim that we have found a single causative factor. However, despite the inconstant results of clinical studies and unanswered questions in this field, based on accumulating evidence suggesting irreversible neuronal damage and lasting neurodevelopmental sequels, it is wise to avoid any unnecessary procedure requiring GA in early life. Obviously children’s deprivation of anesthesia and analgesia is not legally or ethically accepted (
29). Definitely to achieve the desired goals, not only anesthesiologists but also other specialists should be aware from the potential risks of GA administration during early life (
15). Indeed proper communication with other involved physicians who refer the children for an elective surgery or invasive diagnostic procedure requiring GA which could be postponed is crucial (
30). Providing sufficient knowledge in general society especially among parents should be considered as well. As such parents frequently question the physicians about the safety of GA in their children (
31).