the Pericapsular Nerve Group (PENG) and Suprainguinal Fascia Iliaca Blocks (SIFIB) in Elderly Patients

NCT ID: NCT06277648

Last Updated: 2025-04-20

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

75 participants

Study Classification

INTERVENTIONAL

Study Start Date

2022-01-01

Study Completion Date

2024-06-15

Brief Summary

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

This clinical trial aims to compare the effect of the pericapsular nerve group (PENG) and suprainguinal fascia iliaca blocks (SIFIB) on pain management in elderly patients with subtrochanteric femur fractures.

The participants will be patients determined to have proximal femoral nailing. According to randomisation, each participant will receive either PENG or SIFIB postoperatively after spinal anaesthesia. The investigator will measure postoperative pain scores, total amount of analgesic consumption and motor ability postoperatively.

Detailed Description

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

Randomization and blindness Randomization was designed as 3 (n= 25) named Groups A, B, and C in a 1:1:1 ratio with a computer-based algorithm and sealed in opaque envelopes by the surgeon assigned to the study. The investigator anesthesiologist selected an envelope in order of numbers written on it and proceeded with PENG if it was Group A and SIFIB if it was Group B. There was no other intervention than intravenous analgesia if it was Group C. The orthopaedic surgeon responsible for the study was blinded to the study groups. This surgeon was the sole evaluator of postoperative pain scores and total analgesia consumption. All block procedures were performed by the primary investigator (B.C.) The duration of block performance and number of needle manipulations before local anaesthetic injections were recorded by the anaesthesia technician assisting the procedure.

Anaesthesia, interventions, and post-interventional follow-up Standardization All patients received standard spinal anaesthesia procedures with 10 mg of heavy Marcaine (2 mL of bupivacaine 0.5%) and 20 µg of fentanyl (0.5 ml) at L3-4 intervertebral space with the aid of midazolam 0.02 mg /kg and ketamine 0.3 mg/kg to-analgesia to achieve sitting position. According to randomization, patients in the study groups (Group PENG and SIFIB) received block procedures with the same local anaesthetic mixture as 30 mL 0.375% bupivacaine postoperatively in the recovery room under monitorization. The same analgesia plan was ordered for all participants as paracetamol 1 gr (four times daily), tenoxicam 20 mg (daily) and dexamethasone 8 mg once postoperatively. They received rescue analgesia only if they had persistent pain scores higher than 4 of 10 or asked for analgesia, as 1mg/kg tramadol (maximum daily dose, 4x1).

Interventions; block procedures PENG block was performed by the primary investigator (B.C) following proper skin disinfection with the patient in the supine position. Under the guidance of a low-frequency curvilinear ultrasound probe, the iliopubic eminence and the psoas tendon were identified, and local anaesthetic was injected between the periosteum and psoas tendon following negative aspiration.

For SIFIB, the high-frequency linear probe was placed medial to the anterosuperior iliac spine in a parasagittal orientation to visualize the bow tie appearance formed by the sartorius internal oblique and iliacus muscle. The needle tip was placed under fascia iliaca through an in-plane approach, and local anaesthetic was injected from the caudad to the cephalic direction.

Outcome Measures Primary outcome The primary outcome of this study is the pain scores. They were assessed by the same orthopaedic surgeon using the NRS (which ranges from 0 to 10, where zero represents the absence of pain, and 10 signifies the worst imaginable pain) at postoperative intervals of 0,4, 8, 12, and 24 hours.

Secondary outcomes The blinded orthopaedic surgeon recorded the number of times rescue analgesia was applied within 24 hours postoperatively as analgesic consumption. Also, block performances were compared by the duration of interventions and the presence of motor block as hip adduction at the postoperative 6th hour.

Sample size and statistical analysis The sample size was based on detecting a change of 2 units or more in mean pain scores (the primary outcome) using analysis of covariance on the outcomes at the follow-up time point. Using an estimated standard deviation of 2 units for pain scores (0-10) with standard type I and type II error rates, we calculated that 20 patients per group would be needed. To allow dropouts or exclusions, we enrolled 25 patients on each group to have a total sample size of 75 participants.

Conditions

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

Collum Femoris Fracture Pericapsular Nerve Group Block Suprainguinal Fascia Iliaca Block

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

a double-blind, prospective, randomized, controlled study
Primary Study Purpose

SUPPORTIVE_CARE

Blinding Strategy

DOUBLE

Participants Outcome Assessors
The orthopaedic surgeon responsible for the study was blinded to the study groups. This surgeon was the sole evaluator of postoperative pain scores and total analgesia consumption.

Study Groups

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

Control

All patients received standard spinal anaesthesia procedures with multimodal pain protocol postoperatively.

Group Type NO_INTERVENTION

No interventions assigned to this group

PENG block

All patients received standard spinal anaesthesia procedures with PENG block postoperatively.

Group Type EXPERIMENTAL

PENG block

Intervention Type PROCEDURE

PENG block was performed by the primary investigator (B.C) following proper skin disinfection with the patient in the supine position. Under the guidance of a low-frequency curvilinear ultrasound probe, the iliopubic eminence and the psoas tendon were identified, and local anaesthetic as 30 mL 0.375% bupivacaine was injected between the periosteum and psoas tendon following negative aspiration.

SIFI block

All patients received standard spinal anaesthesia procedures with SIFIB postoperatively.

Group Type EXPERIMENTAL

SIFIB

Intervention Type PROCEDURE

The high-frequency linear probe was placed medial to the anterosuperior iliac spine in a parasagittal orientation to visualize the bow tie appearance formed by the sartorius's internal oblique and iliacus muscles. The needle tip was placed under fascia iliaca through an in-plane approach, and local anaesthetic as 30 mL 0.375% bupivacaine was injected from the caudad to the cephalic direction.

Interventions

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

PENG block

PENG block was performed by the primary investigator (B.C) following proper skin disinfection with the patient in the supine position. Under the guidance of a low-frequency curvilinear ultrasound probe, the iliopubic eminence and the psoas tendon were identified, and local anaesthetic as 30 mL 0.375% bupivacaine was injected between the periosteum and psoas tendon following negative aspiration.

Intervention Type PROCEDURE

SIFIB

The high-frequency linear probe was placed medial to the anterosuperior iliac spine in a parasagittal orientation to visualize the bow tie appearance formed by the sartorius's internal oblique and iliacus muscles. The needle tip was placed under fascia iliaca through an in-plane approach, and local anaesthetic as 30 mL 0.375% bupivacaine was injected from the caudad to the cephalic direction.

Intervention Type PROCEDURE

Other Intervention Names

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

pericapsuşar nerve group block suprainguinal fascia iliaca block

Eligibility Criteria

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

Inclusion Criteria

* Patients over 65
* Patients scheduled for proximal femoral nailing
* Patients with American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) Physical Status classification of I to IV.

Exclusion Criteria

* refusal to participate
* a history of neurological deficits or neuropathy
* infection at the site of block application
* coagulopathy
* allergy to local anaesthetics
* patients with severe cardiopulmonary insufficiency or renal impairment
* mental illness.
* prolonged surgery due to orthopaedic complications of more than 3 hours, necessitating conversion of spinal anaesthesia to general anaesthesia.
Minimum Eligible Age

18 Years

Maximum Eligible Age

100 Years

Eligible Sex

ALL

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Sponsors

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

Haseki Training and Research Hospital

OTHER

Sponsor Role lead

Responsible Party

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

Responsibility Role SPONSOR

Principal Investigators

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

Berna Caliskan

Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR

Haseki Training and Research Hospital Anesthesiology and Reanimation Department

Locations

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

Haseki Training and Research Hospital

Istanbul, Sultangazi, Turkey (Türkiye)

Site Status

Countries

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

Turkey (Türkiye)

References

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

Vamshi C, Sinha C, Kumar A, Kumar A, Kumari P, Kumar A, Kumar S, Arun SK. Comparison of the efficacy of pericapsular nerve group block (PENG) block versus suprainguinal fascia iliaca block (SFIB) in total hip arthroplasty: A randomized control trial. Indian J Anaesth. 2023 Apr;67(4):364-369. doi: 10.4103/ija.ija_311_22. Epub 2023 Apr 10.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 37303868 (View on PubMed)

Aliste J, Layera S, Bravo D, Jara A, Munoz G, Barrientos C, Wulf R, Branez J, Finlayson RJ, Tran Q. Randomized comparison between pericapsular nerve group (PENG) block and suprainguinal fascia iliaca block for total hip arthroplasty. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2021 Oct;46(10):874-878. doi: 10.1136/rapm-2021-102997. Epub 2021 Jul 20.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 34290085 (View on PubMed)

Other Identifiers

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

18-2021

Identifier Type: -

Identifier Source: org_study_id

More Related Trials

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

PENG vs. FIC Blocks in Hip Fractures in the ED
NCT06336460 NOT_YET_RECRUITING NA