The Analgesic Efficacy of Bilateral Erector Spinae Plane Block in Comparison With Intrathecal Morphine After Elective Cesarean Section

NCT ID: NCT03935412

Last Updated: 2019-07-23

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

140 participants

Study Classification

INTERVENTIONAL

Study Start Date

2019-03-05

Study Completion Date

2019-07-05

Brief Summary

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

The aim of this study was to assess the analgesic efficacy of bilateral erector spinae plane block in comparison with intrathecal morphine after elective cesarean section under spinal anesthesia.

Detailed Description

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

140 parturient scheduled for elective cesarean section. We obtained a written informed consent for anesthesia from each patient after explaining to them the nature of study and possible complications. Parturient were eligible for enrollment if they met the following inclusion criteria: Parturient aged 18 - 40 years , with American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status (ASA) class Ι, scheduled for elective cesarean section via a low transverse abdominal incision (Pfannenstiel) and receiving intrathecal anesthesia without sedation. Exclusion criteria included significant hepatic, renal or cardiovascular diseases, local infection, bleeding disorders, any contraindication to intrathecal anesthesia and parturient had a known allergy to the study drugs.

Participants were randomly divided into two groups (ITM; intrathecal morphine and ESPB; erector spinae plane block groups, with 70 participants in each) as simple randomization by computer-generated random numbers that were placed in separate opaque envelopes opened by responsible anesthesiologist just before intrathecal block. The participants, the study investigators and the data collectors were not aware of group allocation till the study end. Those in the ITM group were given 100 mcg of preservative-free morphine in addition local anesthetic (hyperbaric bupivacaine 10 mg) intrathecally during spinal anesthesia. While participants in the ESPB group were given only local anesthetic (hyperbaric bupivacaine 10 mg) intrathecally.

Preoperative investigations including electrocardiogram (ECG), complete blood picture, renal function tests, liver function tests, and coagulation profile were done. All parturient were fast for 8 h preoperatively. Upon arrival to the operating room IV access was obtained (one peripheral venous cannula 18G) and standard monitoring including pulse oximetry, ECG and noninvasive blood pressure were placed. And 10 ml.kg-1 of Ringer lactate solution will be infused over 15 minutes as a preload. The responsible anesthesiologist then asked the parturient to turn into sitting position where the skin on the back sterilized and; Spinal anesthesia performed via a midline approach into the L4-5 interspaces using a 25 gauge Quincke spinal needle after giving 3 ml of lidocaine 2% as a subcutaneous infiltration. After confirming free CSF flow through the needle a 10mg of hyperbaric bupivacaine 0.5 % was slowly injected for those in the ESPB group; and for those in the ITM group intrathecal injection of 10mg of hyperbaric bupivacaine 0.5 % in addition to 100 mcg of preservative-free morphine. Then, the parturient immediately placed in the supine position with 15° left tilt, and an oxygen mask was applied at 2 l.min-1. After ensuring sufficient anesthesia level, the surgical procedure was done with continuous hemodynamics monitoring and recording. If the systolic blood pressure (SBP) decreased to 20% below the baseline or less than 90 mmHg, ephedrine 5 mg will be administered intravenously. Also, if HR will be less than 50 beats/ min, atropine sulfate 0.5 mg will be administered intravenously. Upon delivery of the fetus, ten units of oxytocin were given by IV infusion.

By the end of surgery parturient in the ESPB underwent bilateral ESPB at the level of T9 using a linear ultrasound (US) transducer (Phillips Saronno Italy) the transducer was placed vertically3cm lateral to the midline to visualize the muscles of the back, transverse process and the pleura in between the two transverse processes. After local infiltration of the needle insertion site with 2-3 ml of 2% lidocaine 22-G short bevel needle (spinocan, B.Braun melsungen AG, Germany) was inserted in cranial-caudal direction towards the transvers process using in plane technique until the needle cross all the muscles then interfascial injection of 20ml 0.5% bupivacaine was done after ensuring negative aspiration, the procedure was repeated following the same steps on the other side of the back. While participants in the ITM group underwent sham blocks; Sham blocks consisted of a non-invasive ultrasound scan, while a blunt needle was gently pressed on both sides. We instructed the participants to report any signs of local anesthetic toxicity throughout injection e.g. change in mental status, anxiety, oral numbness and ringing in ears. For all participants spinal level and numerical rating scale were assessed and recorded before the block. At the end of surgery, parturient were transferred to postoperative anesthesia care unit (PACU) with standard monitoring applied. Any intraoperative or postoperative nausea or vomiting was managed with 10 mg metoclopramide. All participants received 30 mg ketorolac intravenously with the time of ESPB or sham blocks. Participants were transferred to obstetrics ward after fulfilling the criteria of modified Aldrete scoring system.

Conditions

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

Postoperative Pain

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

PREVENTION

Blinding Strategy

TRIPLE

Participants Caregivers Outcome Assessors

Study Groups

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

ES Erector Spinae Plane Block

By the end of surgery parturient in the ESPB underwent bilateral ESPB at the level of T9 using a linear ultrasound (US) transducer (Phillips Saronno Italy) the transducer was placed vertically3cm lateral to the midline to visualize the muscles of the back, transverse process and the pleura in between the two transverse processes. After local infiltration of the needle insertion site with 2-3 ml of 2% lidocaine 22-G short bevel needle (spinocan, B.Braun melsungen AG, Germany) was inserted in cranial-caudal direction towards the transvers process using in plane technique until the needle cross all the muscles then interfascial injection of 20ml 0.5% bupivacaine was done after ensuring negative aspiration, the procedure was repeated following the same steps on the other side of the back.

Group Type ACTIVE_COMPARATOR

Erector Spinae Plane Block

Intervention Type PROCEDURE

Erector Spinae Plane Block

intrathecal morphine ITM

participant in the ITM group intrathecal injection of 10mg of hyperbaric bupivacaine 0.5 % in addition to 100 mcg of preservative-free morphine. Then, the parturient immediately placed in the supine position with 15° left tilt, and an oxygen mask was applied at 2 l.min-1. After ensuring sufficient anesthesia level, the surgical procedure was done with continuous hemodynamics monitoring and recording. While participants in the ITM group underwent sham blocks; Sham blocks consisted of a non-invasive ultrasound scan, while a blunt needle was gently pressed on both sides.

Group Type SHAM_COMPARATOR

Erector Spinae Plane Block

Intervention Type PROCEDURE

Erector Spinae Plane Block

Interventions

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

Erector Spinae Plane Block

Erector Spinae Plane Block

Intervention Type PROCEDURE

Eligibility Criteria

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

Inclusion Criteria

* American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status (ASA) class Ι, scheduled for elective cesarean section via a low transverse abdominal incision (Pfannenstiel) and receiving intrathecal anesthesia without sedation

Exclusion Criteria

* included significant hepatic, renal or cardiovascular diseases, local infection, bleeding disorders, any contraindication to intrathecal anesthesia and parturient had a known allergy to the study drugs.
Minimum Eligible Age

18 Years

Maximum Eligible Age

40 Years

Eligible Sex

FEMALE

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

Yes

Sponsors

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

Fayoum University

OTHER

Sponsor Role lead

Responsible Party

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

Mohamed hamed

mohamed ahmed hamed

Responsibility Role PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR

Locations

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

Faculty of Medicine

Al Fayyum, , Egypt

Site Status

Countries

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

Egypt

References

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

Ueshima H, Otake H. Similarities Between the Retrolaminar and Erector Spinae Plane Blocks. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2017 Jan/Feb;42(1):123-124. doi: 10.1097/AAP.0000000000000526. No abstract available.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 27997492 (View on PubMed)

Leung AY. Postoperative pain management in obstetric anesthesia--new challenges and solutions. J Clin Anesth. 2004 Feb;16(1):57-65. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinane.2003.02.012.

Reference Type RESULT
PMID: 14984863 (View on PubMed)

Other Identifiers

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

R 125

Identifier Type: -

Identifier Source: org_study_id

More Related Trials

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