Menu
Recruiting NCT05521789

Erector Spinae Block for Thoracic Surgery

Phase IV Interventional Pulmonary Neoplasm Pulmonary Cancer Thoracic Diseases Thoracic Cancer

For patients and families

In plain language

An automatic summary of structured registry data. It is an orientation aid, not a substitute for the official protocol or a physician assessment.

What is being studied
The protocol lists: ESB Thoracic.
Who it may be relevant to
Registry conditions: Pulmonary Neoplasm, Pulmonary Cancer, Thoracic Diseases, Thoracic Cancer. Basic parameters: 18 years — 90 years · All.
What needs checking
Age, condition and sex are only basic indicators. Prior treatment, laboratory values and other mandatory requirements appear in the eligibility criteria below.
Where it takes place
United States
Next step
Save the trial, show it to the treating physician, and confirm current recruitment with the study center. Costs, documents and travel →
Official title

Erector Spinae Blocks for Thoracic Surgery

Overview

The aim of this study is to determine if erector spinae injections with bolus infusions with local anesthetic decrease postsurgical pain and opioid consumption in patients undergoing pulmonary resection surgery.

Detailed description

The research hypothesis for the ESB Thoracic study is that erector spinae blocks with boluses of bupivacaine infusions will decrease patients' postsurgical pain, and thereby decrease the amount of narcotic pain medication used. This will be of particular use in patients who have an anticoagulation need and are not able to receive more invasive nerve blocks.To achieve appropriate exposure for pulmonary resection surgery, whether open or video-assisted, patients have surgical incision in the lateral thoracic region, including disruption to the tributaries of the spinal nerves. Due to this dissection, patients frequently experience significant pain post-operatively. Erector spinae blocks with bupivacaine or ropivacaine with bolus infusion therapy have been shown to treat this spinal nerve pain effectively in rib fractures, thoracoscopic surgeries, and breast surgeries. However, there have been no definitive studies evaluating the effectiveness of erector spinae blocks in postoperative pulmonary resection surgery patients.

It is expected that patients with erector spinae blocks (ESB) will have lower pain visual analogue scores (VAS) and lower total opioid consumption. Learning more about the effectiveness of ESB can help in providing adjunct therapy and thereby minimize post-operative opioids, use of which can add further complications in this group of patients through decreased ventilation and increased atelectasis and hypercarbia. As well, current neuraxial local anesthetic therapy involving epidurals and paravertebral blocks require an absence of anticoagulation in the patient; as a fascial plane block, erector spinae blocks can be safely placed in patients on anticoagulation.

Interventions

  • Drug ESB Thoracic
    Erector spinae thoracic block with bupivacaine

Primary outcome measures

  • Outcome Measure - Pain Score and Pain Medications (6 hours) [Time frame: At 6 hours postoperatively]
  • Outcome Measure - Pain Score and Pain Medications (12 hours) [Time frame: At 12 hours postoperatively]
  • Outcome Measure - Pain Score and Pain Medications (24 hours) [Time frame: At 24 hours postoperatively]

Eligibility criteria

Inclusion criteria

  • pulmonary resection
  • 18<age<90

Exclusion criteria

  • pleurodesis
  • decortication
  • emergent surgery
  • local anesthetic allergy
  • intraoperative complication (inadvertent hemorrhage or conversion to open surgery)
  • bilateral pulmonary resection

Criteria are shown verbatim from the registry (in English). Final eligibility is always assessed by the study center.

Healthy volunteers: No

Study design

Allocation
Randomized
Model
Parallel assignment
Masking
Open label
Primary purpose
Treatment

Study locations

United States · 1 center
  • The George Washington University — Washington D.C.

Identifiers

NCT: NCT05521789 · NCR213913

Primary sources (government registries)

View this study on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗