Dexamethasone vs. Dexmedetomidine for ESPB in Pain Management After Hip Arthroplasty
NCT ID: NCT06233604
Last Updated: 2024-04-29
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.
RECRUITING
PHASE4
30 participants
INTERVENTIONAL
2024-04-10
2025-05-30
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
Dexamethasone Vs. Dexmedetomidine for ESPB in Pain Management After Knee Arthroplasty
NCT06470100
Perioperative Dexamethasone Reduces Postoperative Pain and Nausea After Hip Arthroscopy
NCT04610398
Dexamethasone for iPACK Block With ACB in Total Knee Arthroplasty
NCT06470204
The Effect of Perioperative Dexamethasone Administration on Postoperative Pain in Patients Undergoing Periacetabular Osteotomy.
NCT03874936
Impact of Dexamethasone Route on Pain and Inflammation in iPACK With ACB for Knee Arthroplasty
NCT07180953
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
After spine surgery, patients need good analgesia. Peripheral nerve blocks have provided a safe, effective method to control early postoperative pain when symptoms are most severe.
The safety of local anaesthesia is essential due to the much lower toxicity threshold of local anaesthetics. An effective adjuvant, such as Dexamethasone or Dexmedetomidine, could allow for a higher dilution of local anaesthetics while maintaining and enhancing their analgesic effect.
There is considerable research where intravenous and perineural dexamethasone and Dexmedetomidine use have been compared in adults. However, there is a massive lack of research regarding spine surgery and the Erector Spinae Plane Block.
In this study, investigators compare perineural Dexamethasone and Dexmedetomidine.
The investigator aims to find a dexamethasone or dexmedetomidine that covers the need for good pain relief and fast recovery postoperatively.
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
TRIPLE
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
Placebo
0.2% ropivacaine for erector spinae plane block
0.9%sodium chloride
unilateral administration of 20ml of 0,2% ropivacaine + 2ml 0.9% sodium chloride for the erector spine plane block
Dexamethasone
0.2% ropivacaine + 4mg Dexamethasone for erector spinae plane block
Dexamethasone
unilateral administration of 20ml of 0,2% ropivacaine with 4mg Dexamethasone for the erector spine plane block
Dexmedetomidine
0.2% ropivacaine + 50ug Dexmedetomidine for erector spinae plane block
Dexmedetomidine
unilateral administration of 20ml of 0,2% ropivacaine with 50ug Dexmedetomidine for the erector spine plane block
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
0.9%sodium chloride
unilateral administration of 20ml of 0,2% ropivacaine + 2ml 0.9% sodium chloride for the erector spine plane block
Dexamethasone
unilateral administration of 20ml of 0,2% ropivacaine with 4mg Dexamethasone for the erector spine plane block
Dexmedetomidine
unilateral administration of 20ml of 0,2% ropivacaine with 50ug Dexmedetomidine for the erector spine plane block
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
* aged \>18 years and \<100 years
* ASA physical status 1, 2 or 3.
Exclusion Criteria
* had a history of opioid abuse,
* had an infection of the site of needle puncture,
* were less than 18 years of age,
* were postponed as having ASA 4 or 5,
* had an allergy to any of the drugs used in the study,
* renal failure (estimated glomerular filtration rate \<15ml/min/1.73m2),
* liver failure,
* known or suspected coagulopathy,
* pre-existing anatomical or neurological disorders in the lower extremities,
* intellectual disability with problems in pain evaluation,
* severe psychiatric illness.
18 Years
100 Years
ALL
No
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
Poznan University of Medical Sciences
OTHER
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Principal Investigators
Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.
Katarzyna Wieczorowska-Tobis, Prof.dr hab.
Role: STUDY_CHAIR
Poznań University of Medical Sciences
Locations
Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.
Poznan University of Medical Sciences
Poznan, Poznań, Poland
Countries
Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.
Central Contacts
Reach out to these primary contacts for questions about participation or study logistics.
Facility Contacts
Find local site contact details for specific facilities participating in the trial.
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
2/2024
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.