Lidocaine Versus Bupivacaine in Ambulatory Continuous Block With Elastomeric Pump
NCT ID: NCT02121119
Last Updated: 2016-05-24
Study Results
The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.
Basic Information
Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.
COMPLETED
PHASE4
70 participants
INTERVENTIONAL
2013-09-30
2015-09-30
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
The use of continuous peripheral nerve blocks are an effective tool in postoperative analgesia.
In this connection, most of the studies of continuous infusions of local anesthetics by perineural catheters have been made with bupivacaine, levobupivacaine, and ropivacaine However, it has been found that lidocaine action lasts less, has lower cost and is less toxic than longer-acting agents.
The investigators aim is to compare the effectiveness of lidocaine versus bupivacaine continuous popliteal sciatic blockade ambulatory elastomeric pump.
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
Plantar Compartment Block Versus Sciatic Block in Hallux Valgus Ambulatory Surgery
NCT03922412
Continuous Versus Automated Bolus Infusion in Sciatic Nerve Catheters
NCT02293330
Plantar Compartment Block in Hallux Valgus Ambulatory Surgery
NCT03815422
Sciatic Nerve Block for Ankle/Foot Surgeries. A Comparison Between a Premixed Solution of Lidocaine Plus Bupivacaine and Consecutive Infiltration of Lidocaine and Bupivacaine
NCT01756443
Prospective RCT Lidocaine & Levobupivacaine on Block Dynamics After Subparaneural Popliteal Sciatic Nerve Block
NCT04397484
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
The use of continuous peripheral nerve blocks are an effective tool in postoperative analgesia , allowing prolong the effect of the blockade by the time you want. Such techniques have been described by different groups for the management of postoperative pain with good results even successfully used in ambulatory practice .
However, sending patients home with a continuous infusion pump to local anesthetics causes some problems , such as the method of administration , cost and risk of poisoning by these drugs.
With regard to the method of administration , have been used electronic continuous infusion pumps even allow boluses of demand , with good results. However, its use implies a higher cost and are more difficult to use by patients.
An alternative of greater simplicity and lower cost is the use of disposable pumps ( elastomeric pumps ) without electronic components , which through a simple mechanism to allow a predetermined continuous infusion flow . It has been seen that the use of elastomeric pumps for continuous peripheral nerve blocks are associated with fewer technical problems and more satisfied patients electronic pumps .
Another problem that occurs with the use of ambulatory continuous technical risk is secondary to the administration of local anesthetic solutions long-acting toxicity in a home environment , without immediate medical intervention. While this is a potential risk of toxicity , this problem could be avoided by using less toxic drugs .
In this connection , most of the studies of continuous infusion of local anesthetics by perineural catheters have been made with bupivacaine , levobupivacaine , and ropivacaine . However, it has been found that lidocaine lasts less action , has a lower cost and is less toxic than the long-acting agents , although no studies which continuous infusion of lidocaine home . In addition , there is evidence of comparable effectiveness between solutions of bupivacaine and lidocaine in continuous epidural infusion for postoperative analgesia , why lidocaine is likely to be a good alternative for continuous ambulatory blocks .
Therefore, the investigators objective is to compare the effectiveness of lidocaine versus bupivacaine in ambulatory popliteal sciatic blockade with continuous elastomeric pump .
Conditions
See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
RANDOMIZED
PARALLEL
TREATMENT
QUADRUPLE
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
Lidocaine
0.5% lidocaine infusion hour to 5 ml Baxter Infusor elastomeric pump 5 ml / hr.
Lidocaine
Continuous block with lidocaine in both legs. Lidocaine infusion starts 0.5% to 5 ml hour Baxter Infusor elastomeric pump LV 5 ml / hr
Bupivacaine
Infusion of 0.1% bupivacaine hour to 5 ml Baxter Infusor elastomeric pump 5 ml / hr.
Bupivacaine
Continuous block with lidocaine in both legs. Infusion starts bupivacaine 0.1% to 5 ml hour Baxter Infusor elastomeric pump LV 5 ml / hr
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
Lidocaine
Continuous block with lidocaine in both legs. Lidocaine infusion starts 0.5% to 5 ml hour Baxter Infusor elastomeric pump LV 5 ml / hr
Bupivacaine
Continuous block with lidocaine in both legs. Infusion starts bupivacaine 0.1% to 5 ml hour Baxter Infusor elastomeric pump LV 5 ml / hr
Other Intervention Names
Discover alternative or legacy names that may be used to describe the listed interventions across different sources.
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
* Body mass index between 20 and 34 kg/m2
* Bilateral surgery of ankle or foot.
* Peripheral nerve block and general anesthesia
Exclusion Criteria
* Illicit drug use
* Pregnancy
* Psychiatric disease
* Chronic use of analgesia
* Peripheral neuropathy
* History of severe Gastroesophageal reflux disease
20 Years
70 Years
ALL
No
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile
OTHER
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Principal Investigators
Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.
Fernando R Altermatt, MD
Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
Assistant Professor
Locations
Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.
División de Anestesia - Facultad de Medicina Pontificia Universidad Católica
Santiago, Santiago Metropolitan, Chile
Countries
Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
13-289
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.