The Efficacy and Safety of Landmark-guided Compared to Ultrasound-guided Erector Spinae Plane Block Techniques for Analgesia in Female Patients After Breast Surgery.

Not Applicable

Completed

• Conditions: Nerve Block

• Registration Number: NCT06246292
• Lead Sponsor: Alexandria University

Brief Summary

The erector spinae plane (ESP) block is a technique that helps alleviate acute pain. It involves injecting local anesthetic between the erector spinae muscle (ESM) and the vertebra's transverse process (TP). This technique can be guided by ultrasound or anatomical landmarks, and it can be performed while the patient is lying down, sitting or on their side.

Detailed Description

Ultrasound guidance has established itself as the norm for regional anesthesia procedures, enabling live visualization of anatomical structures and enhancing the precision and safety of needle insertion. Conversely, the blind technique relies on anatomical landmarks and the ability to palpate to direct needle insertion. Although the blind technique might provide simplicity and efficiency, uncertainties persist concerning its precision and possible associated risks. As the popularity of the ESPB increases, a relevant query emerges: Should it be conducted with ultrasound guidance or through a non-guided technique? This study was designed to validate the efficacy and safety of a landmark-guided ESPB technique compared to an ultrasound-guided ESPB technique for analgesia in breast surgery. The hypothesis was that the ultrasound and anatomical landmark techniques for ESPB would provide equivalent analgesia. The study's primary objective was to compare the success rate of both techniques. The secondary objectives were to compare the dermatomal block spread, analgesic effectiveness, and technique-related complications.

Study Timeline

• Status Verified: 2024-01
• Study First Submitted: 2024-01-27
• Study First Submitted QC: 2024-02-04
• Study First Posted: 2024-02-07
• Study Start: 2024-02-10
• Primary Completion: 2024-07-01
• Study Completion: 2024-07-01
• Last Update Submitted: 2024-07-29
• Last Update Posted: 2024-07-30

Recruitment & Eligibility

• Status: COMPLETED
• Sex: Female
• Target Recruitment: 248

Inclusion Criteria

• Patients aged 18 years or older.
• Patients had an American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) physical score of I-II.
• Patients undergoing unilateral elective breast surgery.

Exclusion Criteria

• Patients had a contraindication to an ESPB (including coagulopathy, recent anticoagulant medication usage, or infection at the needle puncture site).
• Patients had a history of opioid addiction, preoperative opioid use, and allergies to study medications.
• Obesity (body mass index exceeding 35 kg/m²).
• If the placement of ESPB was not completed due to technique difficulties.
• Patients who expressed a lack of willingness to participate in the study were not considered eligible for participation.

Study & Design

• Study Type: INTERVENTIONAL
• Study Design: PARALLEL

Primary Outcome Measures

Name	Time	Method
To compare the success rate of both landmark-guided ESPB and ultrasound-guided ESPB techniques for analgesia in breast surgery	30 minutes after regional block procedure	The primary outcome was the binary outcome: therapeutic success or failure of ESPB techniques in achieving cutaneous sensory block for breast surgery (from T1 to T6).

Secondary Outcome Measures

Name	Time	Method
To compare the dermatomal block spread in both groups	30 minutes after regional block procedure.	Assessment of the number of blocked cutaneous sensory dermatomes from T1 to T10.
To compare the technique-related complications in both groups	During the regional block procedure.	Assessment of occurrence of adverse effects.
To compare the analgesic effectiveness in both groups	intra- and 24 hours postoperatively	Total fentanyl opioid consumption (microgram).

Trial Locations

Locations (1)

faculty of medicine, Alexandria Unverisity; 🇪🇬 Alexandria, Egypt