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.
TERMINATED
NA
100 participants
INTERVENTIONAL
2015-11-30
2017-11-30
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
Regional Distribution of Ventilation to Assess Respiratory Muscle Dysfunction
NCT01569217
Effects of Inspiratory Muscle Training on Exertional Breathlessness in Patients With Unilateral Diaphragm Paralysis
NCT04563468
Optimization of Non-invasive Diaphragm Activation Using Magnetic Phrenic Nerve Stimulation
NCT04176744
Shear-wave Elastography Compared to Respiratory Function Testing
NCT04959526
Respiratory Muscle Structure and Function in Mechanically Ventilated Patients and Long-term Outcomes
NCT05857774
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
There are several previously described methods for assessing diaphragm movement using ultrasound. The investigators wish to compare two methods to determine which one is more user-friendly and offers the fastest time to measure diaphragm movement. The first method will rely on the ability to identify and image the right and left diaphragms through the acoustic windows of the liver and spleen, respectively, and then record diaphragm movement in M-mode. The second method will rely on the ability to identify the location of the diaphragm by imaging lung sliding, followed by re-orientation of the ultrasound probe to enable measurement of changes in diaphragm thickness with respirations. The investigators hypothesize that, due to the more obvious visibility of the structures involved, the second method will result in more accurate confirmation of diaphragm paralysis.
Study objectives The primary objective is to determine which of two ultrasound-based methods of imaging the diaphragm offers the fastest and easiest way to confirm diaphragm paralysis. A secondary objective is to determine the inter-rater reliability among two individuals using the same scanning method.
Hypothesis The investigators hypothesize that imaging lung sliding with ultrasound followed by diaphragm thickness measurement will be easier and faster for practitioners to detect diaphragm motion/paralysis.
Study procedures Following informed written consent, eligible patients will be recruited in the University of Alberta pre-admission clinic (PAC) or day ward. Once the patient arrives in the block area, a study investigator will scan the patient's diaphragm on both sides using one of the two scanning methods. The scanning method to be used will be determined randomly; the investigator will be given a sealed envelope containing brief instructions on the method of diaphragm imaging to be used. The investigator will scan one side of the patient and then the other side. The order of scanning will be left to the participating investigator. A study team member will record the length of time taken for the investigator to obtain what they deem to be optimal images, which will be saved on the ultrasound machine. Following this, the regional block will be administered.
Once the regional block is deemed to be working, the second set of diaphragm scans will be done. A study investigator will be given brief instructions on how to perform the scanning method, which will be the same one done pre-block. Again, time taken to obtain optimal images will be recorded, and the images will be saved on the ultrasound machine. This will end the study procedure, and the patient will be transferred to the operating theater.
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
CROSSOVER
DIAGNOSTIC
NONE
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
Control group
Diaphragm scanning - traditional method first
The first (pre-block) diaphragm scan with ultrasound will be done on both sides using the liver (right side) and spleen (left side) as acoustic windows. The second (post-block) diaphragm scan will be done on both sides using a novel method in which lung sliding is used as a guide to identify the diaphragm and quantify diaphragm thickening upon respiration.
Study group
Diaphragm scanning - novel method first
The first (pre-block) diaphragm scan with ultrasound will be done on both sides using a novel method in which lung sliding is used as a guide to identify the diaphragm and quantify diaphragm thickening upon respiration. The second (post-block) diaphragm scan will be done will be done on both sides using the liver (right side) and spleen (left side) as acoustic windows.
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
Diaphragm scanning - traditional method first
The first (pre-block) diaphragm scan with ultrasound will be done on both sides using the liver (right side) and spleen (left side) as acoustic windows. The second (post-block) diaphragm scan will be done on both sides using a novel method in which lung sliding is used as a guide to identify the diaphragm and quantify diaphragm thickening upon respiration.
Diaphragm scanning - novel method first
The first (pre-block) diaphragm scan with ultrasound will be done on both sides using a novel method in which lung sliding is used as a guide to identify the diaphragm and quantify diaphragm thickening upon respiration. The second (post-block) diaphragm scan will be done will be done on both sides using the liver (right side) and spleen (left side) as acoustic windows.
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
* Provided informed consent
* Supraclavicular block indicated for surgical anesthesia
Exclusion Criteria
18 Years
80 Years
ALL
No
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
University of Alberta
OTHER
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Locations
Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.
University of Alberta Hospital
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Countries
Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.
References
Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.
Houston JG, Morris AD, Howie CA, Reid JL, McMillan N. Technical report: quantitative assessment of diaphragmatic movement--a reproducible method using ultrasound. Clin Radiol. 1992 Dec;46(6):405-7. doi: 10.1016/s0009-9260(05)80688-9. No abstract available.
Testa A, Soldati G, Giannuzzi R, Berardi S, Portale G, Gentiloni Silveri N. Ultrasound M-mode assessment of diaphragmatic kinetics by anterior transverse scanning in healthy subjects. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2011 Jan;37(1):44-52. doi: 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2010.10.004.
Matamis D, Soilemezi E, Tsagourias M, Akoumianaki E, Dimassi S, Boroli F, Richard JC, Brochard L. Sonographic evaluation of the diaphragm in critically ill patients. Technique and clinical applications. Intensive Care Med. 2013 May;39(5):801-10. doi: 10.1007/s00134-013-2823-1. Epub 2013 Jan 24.
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
Pro00060267
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.