Erector Spinae Plane Block Versus Infraspinatus-Teres Minor Interfascial Plane Block for Analgesia After Shoulder Arthroscopy

Trial statusNot yet recruiting
Trial phaseNot applicable
Trial typeInterventional
Biological sexAll
Age18-80
SponsorTaksim Egitim ve Arastirma Hastanesi

About this trial

The shoulder, being an anatomical region innervated by different nerves, has a wide variety of analgesic approaches, which differ depending on the practitioner. New approaches are being developed based on the different innervation channels demonstrated in clinical and cadaver studies. Over time, the effectiveness of axillary block, suprascapular block, interscalene block, local infiltration, and various combinations, as well as non-regional methods, has been observed. The goal of these approaches is to achieve the highest possible level of patient comfort, high analgesic efficacy, and minimal complications. Studies have shown that the interscalene block has the highest analgesic efficacy and the most ideal postoperative results; therefore, it is frequently used as the gold standard in this field. Providing effective analgesia with a single intervention can also be cited as an aspect that increases patient comfort and simplifies the procedure. In interscalene block; unilateral transient diaphragmatic paralysis due to the spread of local anesthetics to the C7 nerve root, respiratory problems and potential spinal/epidural complications, new approaches are being followed and researched. Results from cervical/high thoracic erector spinae plane block (ESPB) and infraspinatus-teres minor interfascial plane block (ITMIPB) studies, which are the subject of new studies, strengthen the hypothesis that they provide effective analgesia. Neither of these blocks, performed with ultrasonography, carries the risks present in interscalene block. Although the usual risks of a peripheral nerve block are present for these procedures; the block sites are considered safer due to its distance from vascular structures and the reduced risk of additional complications. While small sample studies exist for each type of block, no studies comparing their effectiveness have been found. Besides reduced complications, another advantage of these two blocks is their ability to provide effective analgesia with a single-point injection. The aim of this study is to compare the analgesic efficacy of Cervical Erector Spine Plane Block (ESP) and Infraspinatus-Teres Minor Interfascial Plane Block (ITMIPB) applied for postoperative analgesia in ASA I-III patients undergoing shoulder surgery.

Eligibility criteria

This trial does not accept healthy volunteers

Qualifiers

Adults scheduled for elective shoulder arthroscopy

ASA I-II-III patients

Patients age between 18-80

Disqualifiers

Patients with previously known allergy to local anesthetics.

Patients with insufficient pulmonary functions (Severe obstruction or restriction in Pulmonary Function Test)

Patients with ASA IV or higher

Patients who suffered from any complications related to anesthesia or surgery

Trial design

Design model

Parallel

Treatments tested in this trial

  • cervical erector spinae plane block

    Procedure/Surgery

    Before shoulder surgery, Ultrasound-guided C8-T1 ESP block will be performed for postoperative analgesia

  • Infraspinatus Teres Minor Interfascial Plane Block

    Procedure/Surgery

    Before surgery, Ultrasound-guided Infraspinatus Teres Minor Interfascial Plane Block will be performed for postoperative analgesia

  • Bupivacaine %0.25 (isobaric)

    Drug

    In the both groups, peripheral nerve blocks are performed by using Bupivacaine %0,25.

Treatment groups

100 Participants
are divided into 2 treatment groups
Group A: Erector Spinae Plane Block GroupActive comparator 2 interventions
Group B: Infraspinatus Teres Minor Interfascial Plane Block GroupActive comparator 2 interventions

Trial outcomes

Primary outcomes

1

Postoperative pain intensity

Pain intensity assessed using the 11-point Numeric Rating Scale (NRS; 0=no pain, 10=worst imaginable pain).

Time frame
Postoperative 1., 6., 12. and 24. hour

Secondary outcomes

1

Total postoperative analgesic consumption

Total amount of rescue analgesics (NSAIDs, paracetamol, and opioids) administered during the first 24 hours after surgery. Opioid consumption will be converted to intravenous morphine equivalents for analysis, when applicable.

Time frame
24 hours after surgery
2

Incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV)

Occurrence of postoperative nausea and/or vomiting requiring treatment during the first 24 hours after surgery. Also, the need for rescue antiemetic medication will be recorded.

Time frame
24 hours after surgery
3

Block-related complications

Incidence of block-related complications, including local anesthetic systemic toxicity, vascular puncture, hematoma, infection, pneumothorax, persistent sensory or motor deficits, and other procedure-related adverse events.

Time frame
24 hours after surgery

Other outcomes

Sponsors and contacts

Click on the lead sponsor to view all of their trials.

This trial is not recruiting at the moment. You can still explore other options: