Comparison of Interpectoral+Serratus Anterior Block With Erector Spinae Block in Minimally Invasive Cardiac Surgery
NCT ID: NCT05743231
Last Updated: 2025-05-30
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
NA
40 participants
INTERVENTIONAL
2022-11-29
2024-11-15
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
Invasive cardiac surgery is necessary surgery that can take steps to improve the quality of life and functional status of patients without sternotomy. However, patients may experience intense pain in the immediate postoperative period, which can lead to inactivity, increased risk of complications, and greater consumption of opioids, resulting in adverse effects and prolonged hospital stays. Pain management is challenging due to a large number of dermatomes covered.
Interpectoral plane block + serratus anterior plane block, defined in 2012, has been used in many studies before as part of multimodal analgesia in minimally invasive cardiac surgery. Erector spinae block was also described in 2018 with positive results, which has been used in both sternotomies (open heart surgery) and minimally invasive procedures. Minimally invasive cardiac surgery can be excruciating in the postoperative period, just like thoracotomy surgeries. What is aimed in this study is to compare two previously known regional anesthesia techniques in this study.
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
Comparison of Erector Spinae Plane Block and Serratus Posterior Superior Intercostal Plane Block in Postoperative Pain Management After Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting
NCT07287761
Ultrasound-Guided Serratus and Transversus Thoracic Muscle Plane Block Vs. Erector Spinae Plane Block for Acute Poststernotomy Pain
NCT06625580
Comparison of the Analgesic Efficacy of Chest Wall Blocks in Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery
NCT06657261
Comparison of Postoperative Analgesic Consumption of the Erector Spina Plane Block and Serratus Anterior Plane Block
NCT03904082
Comparison of Postoperative Analgesic Effectiveness of Superficial and Deep Serratus Plane Blocks for Mastectomy
NCT06438211
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
The interpectoral plane block + serratus anterior plane block seems to cover the thoracic dermatomes. It has been the subject of many studies in the same surgical group. Minimally invasive cardiac surgery can be excruciating in the postoperative period, just like thoracotomy surgeries. What is aimed of this study is to compare it with erector spinae block in this study. Additional anesthetic techniques, such as peripheral nerve blocks, are part of the multimodal analgesic strategy and are often used to manage acute pain better. Inadequate treatment can lead to persistent pain conditions. Although numerous nerve blocks exist for this purpose, some may fail because they do not cover the thoracic dermatomes or their entire innervation. The central hypothesis of this study hypothesis, interpectoral plane block + serratus anterior plane block, defined in 2012, has been used in many previous studies as part of multimodal analgesia in minimally invasive cardiac surgery. Erector spinae block was also described in 2018 with positive results that have been used in both sternotomies (open heart surgery) and minimally invasive procedures. In this randomized clinical trial, the study aims to compare the efficacy of previously known field blocks as part of multimodal analgesia in minimally invasive cardiac surgery. As presented in the literature, these techniques have been routinely performed so much that review articles have been written. Targeted in this study, preliminary results will be postoperative pain scores. At Namık Kemal University anesthesia clinic, It is regularly used as part of multimodal analgesia and resident training. Traditional intravenous analgesia methods cause many undesirable side effects depending on the type of opioid used, and they are insufficient compared to regional anesthesia methods.
The main aim of this study is to investigate the effectiveness of these two methods, routinely used in thoracic surgery.
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
DOUBLE
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
interpectoral area block + serratus anterior area block group (IPSA)
Interpectoral plane block + serratus anterior plane block will be performed randomly on the participants.
interpectoral area block + serratus anterior area block group
The interpectoral and serratus anterior area blocks will be applied immediately after general anesthesia is given to the participants under ultrasound guidance. 30 ml of 0.25% bupivacaine will be used for two blocks.
erector spinae group (ES)
Erector spinae block will be performed randomly on the participants
interpectoral area block + serratus anterior area block group
The interpectoral and serratus anterior area blocks will be applied immediately after general anesthesia is given to the participants under ultrasound guidance. 30 ml of 0.25% bupivacaine will be used for two blocks.
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
interpectoral area block + serratus anterior area block group
The interpectoral and serratus anterior area blocks will be applied immediately after general anesthesia is given to the participants under ultrasound guidance. 30 ml of 0.25% bupivacaine will be used for two blocks.
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
* ASA I-III (American Society of Anesthesiology classification) patients between the ages of 18-75
* Patients with an average bleeding profile
* Patients who gave written consent to participate in the study
* Patients without local anesthetic allergy and a history
* Patients who have the intellectual level to use the patient-controlled analgesia device
Exclusion Criteria
* Patients who did not agree to participate in the study
* Patients with cancer primarily
* Patients with local anesthetic allergy and a history
* Patients who do not have the intellectual level to use a patient-controlled analgesia device
* Patients with abnormal bleeding profile
* Patients who were re-operated due to any surgical complication (bleeding, etc.) within the 24th hour after the operation
18 Years
75 Years
ALL
Yes
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
Namik Kemal University
OTHER
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Ayhan ŞAHİN
assistant professor
Locations
Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.
Namık Kemal University
Tekirdağ, Süleymanpaşa, Turkey (Türkiye)
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.
2022.212.11.13
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.