Comparison Between Erector Spinae Plane Block And Retrolaminar Block In Patients Undergoing VATS.

NCT ID: NCT06021327

Last Updated: 2023-09-01

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

UNKNOWN

Clinical Phase

NA

Total Enrollment

44 participants

Study Classification

INTERVENTIONAL

Study Start Date

2023-02-01

Study Completion Date

2023-12-30

Brief Summary

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

Post-Video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery pain is a challenging clinical problem that may be associated with increased morbidity and mortality. The current study tests two techniques of regional anaesthesia to control post Video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery pain

Detailed Description

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

Video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) is increasingly being used to manage primary lung cancer and helps reduce postoperative pain. However, it is a fact that pain following VATS can be severe and long-lasting. According to previous study, 18.8% of patients who undergo VATS present with persistent pain 2 months after surgery .The provision of pain relief is a significant consideration, and thoracic epidural analgesia is often regarded to be the gold standard. However, epidural analgesia is not always ideal, and other practical regional methods of analgesia after VATS have been proposed as Erector Spinae Plane Block (ESPB) or retrolaminar block (RLB) .

The retrolaminar block (RLB) is a modified paravertebral block that administers local anesthetic between the lamina of the thoracic vertebra and the erector spinal muscles, using landmark technique or under ultrasound guidance. Previous clinical study reported that RLB provides a good analgesic effect after VATS but was inferior to para-vertebral block(PVB).

Erector spinae plane block (ESPB) is a relatively new interfascial block procedure first described for thoracic analgesia. Previous clinical studies reported that ESPB provides a good analgesic effect after VATS (comparable with PVB) and decreases morphine consumption after Lateral thoracotomy surgery. Thus, anaesthesiologists now have a greater choice for regional anaesthesia for thoracic analgesia. Although ESPB and RLB have similar puncture sites, Only one clinical study comparing ESPB and RLB in breast surgery has been reported , The mentioned study was also limited only to female patients. both blocks were compared with PVB but There is no clinical study that compares ESPB and RLB directly in VATS. Although the mechanisms of action of both ESPB and RLB have not yet been completely clarified, one cadaveric study indicated that ESPB leads to a broader spread of the local analgesic into a more extensive range of intercostal spaces from a single point of injection than RLB . Another cadaveric study reported that the lateral pathway, which is involved in the blockade of the intercostal nerve or the lateral cutaneous branches of the intercostal nerves, is the primary mechanism of ESPB, in contrast to RLB.

Based on these anatomical studies, we hypothesize that ESPB can be superior to RLB for postoperative analgesia after VATS.

Conditions

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

Post-operative Analgesia Retrolaminar Block Erector Spinae Plan Block VATS

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

DOUBLE

Participants Investigators
Patients will be randomized using a computer-generated list of random numbers, which will be sealed in closed envelopes. Patients will be randomly allocated to one of two groups; Group I (E) will receive a US-guided ESPB, while Group II (R) will receive a US-guided RLB. An anesthesiologist who is not involved in the data collection team will perform all nerve blocks. Intra- and postoperative data will be collected by an anesthesiologist or intensivist who is blinded to the study protocol.

Study Groups

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

Erector spinae plane block

will receive a US-guided ESPB

Group Type ACTIVE_COMPARATOR

Erector spinae plane block

Intervention Type PROCEDURE

Under aseptic precautions, the ultrasound transducer will be placed on the patient's back in a longitudinal paramedian orientation approximately 3 cm from the midline. A short-bevel, 80 mm 22-gauge insulated nerve block needle will be inserted using an in-plane approach to contact the tip of the T4 transverse process , After negative aspiration of blood, a total of 20 mL of 0.25% bupivacaine will be injected through the needle. Adequacy of the block will be confirmed by ultrasonographic visualization of fluid spread (seen as a lifting of the erector spina muscles in both block) and after 15 min, documenting the sensory blockade will be done by using a piece of ice or cold object. If the desired sensory level fails to be achieved (T4 - T8), patients will be excluded from the study.

Retrolaminar block

will receive a US-guided RLB

Group Type ACTIVE_COMPARATOR

Retrolaminar block

Intervention Type PROCEDURE

Under aseptic precautions, the ultrasound transducer will be placed on the patient's back in a longitudinal paramedian orientation approximately 1 cm from the midline. A short-bevel, 80 mm 22-gauge insulated nerve block needle will be inserted using an in-plane approach to contact T4 lamina of the vertebra , After negative aspiration of blood, a total of 20 mL of 0.25% bupivacaine will be injected through the needle. And after 15 min, documenting the sensory blockade will be done by using a piece of ice or cold object. If the desired sensory level fails to be achieved (T4 - T8), patients will be excluded from the study.

Interventions

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

Erector spinae plane block

Under aseptic precautions, the ultrasound transducer will be placed on the patient's back in a longitudinal paramedian orientation approximately 3 cm from the midline. A short-bevel, 80 mm 22-gauge insulated nerve block needle will be inserted using an in-plane approach to contact the tip of the T4 transverse process , After negative aspiration of blood, a total of 20 mL of 0.25% bupivacaine will be injected through the needle. Adequacy of the block will be confirmed by ultrasonographic visualization of fluid spread (seen as a lifting of the erector spina muscles in both block) and after 15 min, documenting the sensory blockade will be done by using a piece of ice or cold object. If the desired sensory level fails to be achieved (T4 - T8), patients will be excluded from the study.

Intervention Type PROCEDURE

Retrolaminar block

Under aseptic precautions, the ultrasound transducer will be placed on the patient's back in a longitudinal paramedian orientation approximately 1 cm from the midline. A short-bevel, 80 mm 22-gauge insulated nerve block needle will be inserted using an in-plane approach to contact T4 lamina of the vertebra , After negative aspiration of blood, a total of 20 mL of 0.25% bupivacaine will be injected through the needle. And after 15 min, documenting the sensory blockade will be done by using a piece of ice or cold object. If the desired sensory level fails to be achieved (T4 - T8), patients will be excluded from the study.

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 class (ASA) I, II and III
* Patients undergoing VATS.

Exclusion Criteria

1. Patient refusal
2. Coagulopathy, bleeding disorders,
3. In-ability to postpone anti-coagulation medications.
4. infection at the injection site
5. pregnancy, breastfeeding,
6. severe obesity (body mass index \> 35 kg/m2 )
7. allergy to any drug used in the study
8. preoperative daily use of a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) or opioids,
9. Previous surgery in the thoracic vertebral region
10. Liver dysfunction.
11. Injury or a lesion at the block site.
Minimum Eligible Age

18 Years

Maximum Eligible Age

75 Years

Eligible Sex

ALL

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

Yes

Sponsors

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

Cairo University

OTHER

Sponsor Role lead

Responsible Party

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

Islam M Sayed

[email protected]

Responsibility Role PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR

Principal Investigators

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

Islam M Sayed, MS

Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR

Cairo University

Locations

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

Facalty of Medicine - Cairo University

Cairo, , Egypt

Site Status RECRUITING

Countries

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

Egypt

Central Contacts

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

Islam M Sayed, MS

Role: CONTACT

00201008039448

Facility Contacts

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

Islam M Sayed, MS

Role: primary

00201008039448

References

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

Falcoz PE, Puyraveau M, Thomas PA, Decaluwe H, Hurtgen M, Petersen RH, Hansen H, Brunelli A; ESTS Database Committee and ESTS Minimally Invasive Interest Group. Video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery versus open lobectomy for primary non-small-cell lung cancer: a propensity-matched analysis of outcome from the European Society of Thoracic Surgeon database. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2016 Feb;49(2):602-9. doi: 10.1093/ejcts/ezv154. Epub 2015 Apr 26.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 25913824 (View on PubMed)

Landreneau RJ, Mack MJ, Hazelrigg SR, Naunheim K, Dowling RD, Ritter P, Magee MJ, Nunchuck S, Keenan RJ, Ferson PF. Prevalence of chronic pain after pulmonary resection by thoracotomy or video-assisted thoracic surgery. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1994 Apr;107(4):1079-85; discussion 1085-6. doi: 10.1097/00132586-199412000-00051.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 8159030 (View on PubMed)

Homma T, Doki Y, Yamamoto Y, Ojima T, Shimada Y, Kitamura N, Yoshimura N. Risk factors of neuropathic pain after thoracic surgery. J Thorac Dis. 2018 May;10(5):2898-2907. doi: 10.21037/jtd.2018.05.25.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 29997955 (View on PubMed)

Crumley S, Schraag S. The role of local anaesthetic techniques in ERAS protocols for thoracic surgery. J Thorac Dis. 2018 Mar;10(3):1998-2004. doi: 10.21037/jtd.2018.02.48.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 29707356 (View on PubMed)

Shim JG, Ryu KH, Kim PO, Cho EA, Ahn JH, Yeon JE, Lee SH, Kang DY. Evaluation of ultrasound-guided erector spinae plane block for postoperative management of video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery: a prospective, randomized, controlled clinical trial. J Thorac Dis. 2020 Aug;12(8):4174-4182. doi: 10.21037/jtd-20-689.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 32944329 (View on PubMed)

Pfeiffer G, Oppitz N, Schone S, Richter-Heine I, Hohne M, Koltermann C. [Analgesia of the axilla using a paravertebral catheter in the lamina technique]. Anaesthesist. 2006 Apr;55(4):423-7. doi: 10.1007/s00101-005-0969-0. German.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 16404582 (View on PubMed)

Wang Q, Wei S, Li S, Yu J, Zhang G, Ni C, Sun L, Zheng H. Comparison of the analgesic effect of ultrasound-guided paravertebral block and ultrasound-guided retrolaminar block in Uniportal video-assisted Thoracoscopic surgery: a prospective, randomized study. BMC Cancer. 2021 Nov 16;21(1):1229. doi: 10.1186/s12885-021-08938-7.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 34784889 (View on PubMed)

Taketa Y, Irisawa Y, Fujitani T. Comparison of ultrasound-guided erector spinae plane block and thoracic paravertebral block for postoperative analgesia after video-assisted thoracic surgery: a randomized controlled non-inferiority clinical trial. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2019 Nov 8:rapm-2019-100827. doi: 10.1136/rapm-2019-100827. Online ahead of print.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 31704789 (View on PubMed)

Chen N, Qiao Q, Chen R, Xu Q, Zhang Y, Tian Y. The effect of ultrasound-guided intercostal nerve block, single-injection erector spinae plane block and multiple-injection paravertebral block on postoperative analgesia in thoracoscopic surgery: A randomized, double-blinded, clinical trial. J Clin Anesth. 2020 Feb;59:106-111. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinane.2019.07.002. Epub 2019 Jul 19.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 31330457 (View on PubMed)

Macaire P, Ho N, Nguyen T, Nguyen B, Vu V, Quach C, Roques V, Capdevila X. Ultrasound-Guided Continuous Thoracic Erector Spinae Plane Block Within an Enhanced Recovery Program Is Associated with Decreased Opioid Consumption and Improved Patient Postoperative Rehabilitation After Open Cardiac Surgery-A Patient-Matched, Controlled Before-and-After Study. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2019 Jun;33(6):1659-1667. doi: 10.1053/j.jvca.2018.11.021. Epub 2018 Nov 19.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 30665850 (View on PubMed)

Sotome S, Sawada A, Wada A, Shima H, Kutomi G, Yamakage M. Erector spinae plane block versus retrolaminar block for postoperative analgesia after breast surgery: a randomized controlled trial. J Anesth. 2021 Feb;35(1):27-34. doi: 10.1007/s00540-020-02855-y. Epub 2020 Sep 11.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 32915300 (View on PubMed)

Adhikary SD, Bernard S, Lopez H, Chin KJ. Erector Spinae Plane Block Versus Retrolaminar Block: A Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Anatomical Study. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2018 Oct;43(7):756-762. doi: 10.1097/AAP.0000000000000798.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 29794943 (View on PubMed)

Ivanusic J, Konishi Y, Barrington MJ. A Cadaveric Study Investigating the Mechanism of Action of Erector Spinae Blockade. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2018 Aug;43(6):567-571. doi: 10.1097/AAP.0000000000000789.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 29746445 (View on PubMed)

Onishi E, Toda N, Kameyama Y, Yamauchi M. Comparison of Clinical Efficacy and Anatomical Investigation between Retrolaminar Block and Erector Spinae Plane Block. Biomed Res Int. 2019 Mar 28;2019:2578396. doi: 10.1155/2019/2578396. eCollection 2019.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 31032339 (View on PubMed)

Pfizer Labs I, fda, cder. HIGHLIGHTS OF PRESCRIBING INFORMATION These highlights do not include all the information needed to use ROZLYTREK. 2019;(4):1-23. Available from: http://www.fda.gov/CompanionDiagnostics%0Ahttp://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2012/202570s002lbl.pdf

Reference Type BACKGROUND

Luo D, Wan X, Liu J, Tong T. Optimally estimating the sample mean from the sample size, median, mid-range, and/or mid-quartile range. Stat Methods Med Res. 2018 Jun;27(6):1785-1805. doi: 10.1177/0962280216669183. Epub 2016 Sep 27.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 27683581 (View on PubMed)

Wan X, Wang W, Liu J, Tong T. Estimating the sample mean and standard deviation from the sample size, median, range and/or interquartile range. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014 Dec 19;14:135. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-14-135.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 25524443 (View on PubMed)

Provided Documents

Download supplemental materials such as informed consent forms, study protocols, or participant manuals.

Document Type: Study Protocol

View Document

Other Identifiers

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

MD-327-2022

Identifier Type: -

Identifier Source: org_study_id

More Related Trials

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