Does Adding Spinal Anaesthesia to a General Anaesthetic Technique Influence Readiness for Discharge in Patients Having Hand Assisted Laparoscopic Live Donor Nephrectomy

NCT ID: NCT02700217

Last Updated: 2020-03-17

Study Results

Results pending

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.

Recruitment Status

COMPLETED

Clinical Phase

NA

Total Enrollment

101 participants

Study Classification

INTERVENTIONAL

Study Start Date

2016-03-16

Study Completion Date

2019-03-05

Brief Summary

Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.

About 1100 living donor nephrectomies are performed in the UK every year contributing to almost 35% of all the kidney transplants. Laparoscopic surgical techniques are general employed for donor nephrectomy as they are associated with a shorter hospital stay and faster return to normal physical functioning. Local anaesthetic infiltration technique with or without spinal anaesthesia in combination with a general anaesthetic is increasingly being used as part of enhanced recovery programme across general surgery. The impact of combined spinal and general anaesthesia along with local infiltration and rectus sheath blocks on acute pain has not been studied in patients undergoing hand assisted laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy.

The investigators plan to investigate whether adding a spinal anaesthetic to a conventional general anaesthetic technique actually influences clinical outcomes of length of hospital stay and acute pain in patients undergoing hand assisted laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy.

The investigators plan to randomise 90 patients undergoing hand assisted laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy over 24 month period at Central Manchester University hospitals and divide them in two groups of 45 each. Group A will receive a general anaesthetic (GA) with spinal anaesthesia (Spinal group) and Group B will receive a GA with a rectus sheath block (Rectus sheath group) and local anaesthetic infiltration

Detailed Description

Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.

Conditions

See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.

Surgery

Study Design

Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.

Allocation Method

RANDOMIZED

Intervention Model

PARALLEL

Primary Study Purpose

TREATMENT

Blinding Strategy

DOUBLE

Participants Investigators

Study Groups

Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.

Spinal Anaesthesia

2.5ml of heavy 0.5% Bupivacaine, 400mg of Diamorphine (Spinal Anaesthesia) \& IV infusion of Remifentanil 0.2-0.3ug/kg/min, Propofol 2-3mg/kg and 0.2 mg/kg of Cistracurium (General Anaesthesia)

Group Type EXPERIMENTAL

Bupivacaine and Diamorphine

Intervention Type PROCEDURE

Remifentanil, Propofol and Cistracurium

Intervention Type PROCEDURE

Rectus Sheath Injection

50ml of 0.25% I-Bupivacaine max 2mg/kg (IV block Anaesthesia) injected into rectus sheath bilaterally \& IV infusion of Remifentanil 0.2-0.3ug/kg/min, Propofol 2-3mg/kg and 0.2 mg/kg of Cistracurium (General Anaesthesia)

Group Type ACTIVE_COMPARATOR

Remifentanil, Propofol and Cistracurium

Intervention Type PROCEDURE

Bupivacaine and Rectus Sheath injection

Intervention Type PROCEDURE

Interventions

Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.

Bupivacaine and Diamorphine

Intervention Type PROCEDURE

Remifentanil, Propofol and Cistracurium

Intervention Type PROCEDURE

Bupivacaine and Rectus Sheath injection

Intervention Type PROCEDURE

Eligibility Criteria

Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.

Inclusion Criteria

* ASA 1-2 status
* Patients aged between 18-65 years

Exclusion Criteria

* Patient refusal
* Pregnancy
* Allergy to bupivacaine
* Patients who have had previous abdominal surgery
* Patients having chronic pain or any medications for chronic pain
* Any patient in whom spinal anaesthesia is contra-indicated
* Patients on anti-platelet or anti-thrombotic therapy.
* Patient requiring interpreter
Minimum Eligible Age

18 Years

Maximum Eligible Age

65 Years

Eligible Sex

ALL

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Sponsors

Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.

Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust

OTHER_GOV

Sponsor Role lead

Responsible Party

Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.

Responsibility Role SPONSOR

Locations

Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.

Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust

Manchester, , United Kingdom

Site Status

Countries

Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.

United Kingdom

References

Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.

Bhatia K, Columb M, Wadsworth R, Macnab W, Jepegnanam C, Campbell T, Van Dellen D. Effect of rectus sheath block vs. spinal anaesthesia on time-to-readiness for hospital discharge after trans-peritoneal hand-assisted laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy: A randomised trial. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2021 Apr 1;38(4):374-382. doi: 10.1097/EJA.0000000000001337.

Reference Type DERIVED
PMID: 33009185 (View on PubMed)

Other Identifiers

Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.

R04134

Identifier Type: -

Identifier Source: org_study_id

More Related Trials

Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.