Multifidus Cervicis Plane Block Vs. Sham Block For Posterior Cervical Spine Fusion Surgery

NCT ID: NCT05996133

Last Updated: 2025-09-05

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

RECRUITING

Clinical Phase

PHASE4

Total Enrollment

38 participants

Study Classification

INTERVENTIONAL

Study Start Date

2023-12-12

Study Completion Date

2027-06-30

Brief Summary

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

The goal of this randomized, double-blinded, clinical trial is to assess the benefit of administering a Multifidus Cervicis Plane (MCP) block compared to a sham block as a method of postoperative pain control in patients undergoing posterior cervical spine fusion surgery. The main question it aims to answer is if the MCP block group will have reduced maximum pain scores during the first 24 postoperative hours compared to the sham block group.

Participants will receive preoperative bilateral MCP blocks on the back of their neck using the standard of care local anesthetic solution that consists of 30 mLs 0.25% Bupivacaine + 0.5 mL (5 mg) preservative-free Dexamethasone + 0.1 mL Epinephrine (MCP block group). Researchers will compare the MCP block to the preoperative sham block which consists of injecting 3 mL of normal saline into the same area (Sham block group) to compare the postoperative pain scores between the groups as a main objective. The secondary objectives are:

* Postoperative opioid consumption during hospitalization and at 2 weeks after discharge.
* The amount and type of non-opioid analgesics used during hospitalization.
* The occurrence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) and the use of antiemetics.
* Hospital and Post Anesthesia Care Unit length of stay (LOS).
* Monitor the safety of the study interventions during hospitalization and readmissions within 30 days of discharge.
* Patient satisfaction with pain management and overall satisfaction with the surgery experience.

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.

Cervical Spine Fusion

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

Single-center, prospective, double-blinded, randomized controlled trial
Primary Study Purpose

SUPPORTIVE_CARE

Blinding Strategy

DOUBLE

Participants Caregivers
This is a double-blinded study, patients, research coordinators who collect data, spine surgeons, and other health care providers will all be blinded to the study group assignments to minimize bias and maximize the validity of study results. The block-performing anesthesiologists/investigators, the block nurse, and the senior scientist will not be blinded to the study group assignments.

Patients will not be unblinded after they complete the study or during the study unless a participant experiences a serious adverse event that is unexpected and related to the study intervention (MCP or sham block) and the course of treatment needs to be adjusted. Unblinding in this situation will be the decision of the principal investigator (PI). The PI will contact the Senior Scientist to get the patient's group assignment, and the PI will then unblind the patient (i.e., tell the patient about the assigned group), and take any additional necessary course of treatment.

Study Groups

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

MCP Block

Bilateral Multifidus Cervicis plane block using 30 mL of 0.25% bupivacaine + 0.5 mL (5 mg) preservative-free dexamethasone + 0.1 mL epinephrine 1:400,000.

Group Type EXPERIMENTAL

Bupivacaine Hcl 0.25% Inj

Intervention Type DRUG

30 mL of 0.25% bupivacaine + 0.5 mL (5 mg) preservative-free dexamethasone + 0.1 mL epinephrine 1:400,000.

Sham Block

Bilateral sham block using 3 mL of normal saline injections subcutaneously on the neck.

Group Type SHAM_COMPARATOR

Normal saline

Intervention Type OTHER

3 mL normal saline

Interventions

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

Bupivacaine Hcl 0.25% Inj

30 mL of 0.25% bupivacaine + 0.5 mL (5 mg) preservative-free dexamethasone + 0.1 mL epinephrine 1:400,000.

Intervention Type DRUG

Normal saline

3 mL normal saline

Intervention Type OTHER

Other Intervention Names

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

Dexamethasone Epinephrine

Eligibility Criteria

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

Inclusion Criteria

1. Patients 40-80 years old, males and females, of any race and any ethnic group.
2. Patients are scheduled for elective primary posterior cervical spine fusion surgery (CSFS) to be performed by one of the spine surgeons in the study.
3. Ability to speak and read English
4. Patients with American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) physical status score I- IV

Exclusion Criteria

1. Emergency posterior CSFS.
2. Revision surgery or history of previous cervical spine surgery
3. History of allergy to local anesthetics or steroids.
4. Patients who are coagulopathic at the time of surgery
5. Patients with contraindications to MCP blocks, including but not limited to anatomical abnormality or previous surgical intervention that limits or prevents receiving the blocks
6. Infection at the site of the block.
7. Weight \< 40 kg to avoid local anesthetic toxicity.
8. Patients on chronic or continuous opioid use of \> 50 MME (morphine milli-equivalent) per day for at least 30 days within 90 days prior to surgery.
9. Patients with a history of chronic inflammatory conditions such as multiple sclerosis
10. Refusal to participate or lack of providing the study consent
Minimum Eligible Age

40 Years

Maximum Eligible Age

80 Years

Eligible Sex

ALL

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Sponsors

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

Hartford Hospital

OTHER

Sponsor Role lead

Responsible Party

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

Pranjali P Kainkaryam, MD

Director of Regional Anesthesia & Acute Pain Management

Responsibility Role PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR

Principal Investigators

Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.

Pranjali Kainkaryam, MD

Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR

Hartford Hospital

Locations

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

Hartford Hospital

Hartford, Connecticut, United States

Site Status RECRUITING

Countries

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

United States

Central Contacts

Reach out to these primary contacts for questions about participation or study logistics.

Aseel Walker, MD

Role: CONTACT

(860) 972-1778

Facility Contacts

Find local site contact details for specific facilities participating in the trial.

Pranjali Kainkaryam, MD

Role: primary

860-972-2117

Aseel Walker, MD

Role: backup

860-972-1778

References

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

Brummett CM, Waljee JF, Goesling J, Moser S, Lin P, Englesbe MJ, Bohnert ASB, Kheterpal S, Nallamothu BK. New Persistent Opioid Use After Minor and Major Surgical Procedures in US Adults. JAMA Surg. 2017 Jun 21;152(6):e170504. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2017.0504. Epub 2017 Jun 21.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 28403427 (View on PubMed)

Minor PD, Macadam AJ, Stone DM, Almond JW. Genetic basis of attenuation of the Sabin oral poliovirus vaccines. Biologicals. 1993 Dec;21(4):357-63. doi: 10.1006/biol.1993.1096. No abstract available.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 8024751 (View on PubMed)

Youssef JA, Heiner AD, Montgomery JR, Tender GC, Lorio MP, Morreale JM, Phillips FM. Outcomes of posterior cervical fusion and decompression: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Spine J. 2019 Oct;19(10):1714-1729. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2019.04.019. Epub 2019 May 7.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 31075361 (View on PubMed)

Raja A, Patel P, Mesfin FB. Spinal Stenosis(Archived). 2023 Jun 12. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2025 Jan-. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK441989/

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 28723018 (View on PubMed)

Ohgoshi Y, Kurahashi K. Cervical interfascial plane (CIP) block and multifidus cervicis plane (MCP) block: Similarities and tips. J Clin Anesth. 2017 Sep;41:55. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinane.2017.06.014. Epub 2017 Jun 27. No abstract available.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 28802607 (View on PubMed)

Ohgoshi Y, Kubo EN. Inter-semispinal plane block for cervical spine surgery. J Clin Anesth. 2018 May;46:94-95. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinane.2018.02.007. Epub 2018 Feb 9. No abstract available.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 29433034 (View on PubMed)

Ahiskalioglu A, Yayik AM, Doymus O, Selvitopi K, Ahiskalioglu EO, Calikoglu C, Alici HA, Karaca O. Efficacy of ultrasound-guided modified thoracolumbar interfascial plane block for postoperative analgesia after spinal surgery: a randomized-controlled trial. Can J Anaesth. 2018 May;65(5):603-604. doi: 10.1007/s12630-018-1051-0. Epub 2018 Jan 9. No abstract available.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 29318534 (View on PubMed)

Mohamed, Z.E., Zarad, C.A., Flifel, M.E. et al. The efficacy of ultrasound-guided multifidus cervicis plane block versus greater occipital nerve block for cervicogenic headache. Egypt J Neurol Psychiatry Neurosurg 57, 11 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41983-020-00262-4

Reference Type BACKGROUND

Adamczyk K, Koszela K, Zaczynski A, Niedzwiecki M, Brzozowska-Mankowska S, Gasik R. Ultrasound-Guided Blocks for Spine Surgery: Part 1-Cervix. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2023 Jan 23;20(3):2098. doi: 10.3390/ijerph20032098.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 36767465 (View on PubMed)

Other Identifiers

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

HHC-2023-0156

Identifier Type: -

Identifier Source: org_study_id

More Related Trials

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