Comparing Analgesic Effects of Caudal and Erector Spinae Plane Blocks in Pediatrics Undergoing Upper Abdominal Surgery

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

60 participants

Study Classification

INTERVENTIONAL

Study Start Date

2019-01-01

Study Completion Date

2022-02-25

Brief Summary

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

Upper abdominal surgeries are painful and pediatric patients who undergo these operations require effective postoperative pain control. Epidural and caudal blocks are considered to be the gold standard regional analgesia techniques. Currently, ultrasound guidance is commonly used for caudal block performances to demonstrate the cannula placement and the deposition of local anesthetic. Additionally, erector spinae plane block can be a safer alternative for blocking the similar dermatomes. In this study, the aim is to compare postoperative analgesic effects of these two ultrasound-guided techniques in pediatric patients. The primary outcome of this study is the follow-up of FLACC/VAS pain scores. Secondary outcomes are time to first analgesic requirement, number of patients who require rescue analgesic, possible side effects, time to first mobilization, length of hospital stay and chronic pain due to incision after 2 months.

Related Clinical Trials

Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.

Comparing Analgesic Effects of Three Ultrasound Guided Regional Anesthetic Techniques in Pediatrics

NCT03780790

Anesthesia, Local

COMPLETED NA

Comparison of US-guided Single-dose Thoracic Paravertebral, Erector Spinae Plane and Serratus Anterior Plane Blocks

NCT05431062

Anesthesia, Local

UNKNOWN NA

Erector Spinae Plane Block Versus Quadratus Lumborum Block for Postoperative Analgesia in Children

NCT03463382

Postoperative Pain

COMPLETED NA

Ultrasound-Guided Versus Conventional Method for Caudal Block

NCT03427437

Ultrasound Therapy; Complications

COMPLETED NA

The Efficacy of Different Bupivacaine Concentrations in Pediatric Patients Undergoing Transversus Abdominis Plane Block

NCT04202367

Transversus Abdominis Plane Block

COMPLETED NA

Detailed Description

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

Upper abdominal surgeries are painful and pediatric patients who undergo these operations require effective postoperative pain control. Blockade of dermatomes between T6 and L1 commonly provides effective postoperative analgesia. Epidural and caudal blocks are considered to be the gold standard regional analgesia techniques as they provide both somatic and visceral analgesia. Currently, ultrasound guidance is commonly used for caudal block performances to demonstrate the cannula placement and the deposition of local anesthetic. Additionally, erector spinae plane block can be a safer alternative for blocking the similar dermatomes. In the present study, the aim is to compare postoperative analgesic effects of these two ultrasound-guided techniques in pediatric patients undergoing upper abdominal surgery. The primary outcome of this study is the follow-up of FLACC/VAS pain scores. Secondary outcomes are time to first analgesic requirement, number of patients who require rescue analgesic, possible side effects (nausea, vomiting, itching, urinary retention, bradycardia, hypotension, respiratory depression), time to first mobilization, length of hospital stay and chronic pain due to incision after 2 months.

Conditions

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

Anesthesia, Local

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

RANDOMISED DOUBLE BLINDED INTERVENTIONAL

Primary Study Purpose

SCREENING

Blinding Strategy

TRIPLE

Participants Investigators Outcome Assessors

Study Groups

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

Caudal Block

US-guided caudal block with 0.7 ml/kg 0.25% Bupivacaine

Group Type ACTIVE_COMPARATOR

Bupivacaine 0.7 ml/kg

Intervention Type DRUG

Bupivacaine 0.25% 0.7 ml/kg

Erector Spinae Plane Block

US-guided erector spinae plane block with 0.5 ml/kg 0.25% Bupivacaine

Group Type ACTIVE_COMPARATOR

Bupivacaine 0.5 ml/kg

Intervention Type DRUG

Bupivacaine 0.25% 0.5 ml/kg

Interventions

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

Bupivacaine 0.7 ml/kg

Bupivacaine 0.25% 0.7 ml/kg

Intervention Type DRUG

Bupivacaine 0.5 ml/kg

Bupivacaine 0.25% 0.5 ml/kg

Intervention Type DRUG

Other Intervention Names

Discover alternative or legacy names that may be used to describe the listed interventions across different sources.

Marcaine Marcaine

Eligibility Criteria

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

Inclusion Criteria

* undergoing upper abdominal surgery
* ASA(American Society of Anesthesiology)1-2

Exclusion Criteria

* denial of patient or parents
* infection on the local anesthetic application area
* infection in the central nervous system
* coagulopathy
* brain tumors
* known allergy against local anesthetics
* anatomical difficulties
* with preexisting cardiac dysfunction
* with history of renal and/or hepatic dysfunction

Minimum Eligible Age

1 Year

Maximum Eligible Age

12 Years

Eligible Sex

ALL

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No