Erector Spinae Plane vs Serratus Anterior Plane Catheter Infusions for Acute Pain Management in Patients With Traumatic Rib Fractures

Trial statusNot yet recruiting
Trial phaseNot applicable
Trial typeInterventional
Biological sexAll
Age18+
SponsorSunnybrook Health Sciences Centre

About this trial

Rib fractures happen in about 10-20% of patients with blunt trauma and can be serious, with higher death rates in older adults. These injuries often lead to lung problems like pneumonia, collapsed lung areas (atelectasis), fluid buildup, or even respiratory failure. A major reason for this is pain-patients avoid deep breathing and coughing, which worsens lung function. Good pain control helps prevent these complications.

Opioids are commonly used for pain but can cause problems such as slowed breathing, delirium, nausea, and longer time on a ventilator. Because of this, regional anesthesia (nerve blocks) is increasingly used to control pain while reducing opioid use. Common options include epidurals, paravertebral blocks, and newer techniques like erector spinae plane (ESP) and serratus anterior plane (SAP) blocks. Continuous catheter techniques are especially useful in trauma patients because they can provide ongoing pain relief and have fewer contraindications than epidurals.

The SAP block is done at the side of the chest and works well for rib fractures in the front and side. It may not work as well for fractures in the back, although trauma may sometimes allow the anesthetic to spread further than expected.

The ESP block is done near the spine and may cover a broader area, including both front and back of the chest. It is relatively easy to perform at the bedside and is considered safe. Studies suggest it provides pain relief similar to epidurals in some patients.

There is still limited evidence directly comparing continuous SAP and ESP catheters. Only one study (using single injections) suggests ESP may provide better pain relief. It is unclear whether that difference holds true with continuous infusions, or whether SAP might be preferable because it is easier and quicker to perform.

We propose a randomized trial comparing continuous ESP and SAP catheters in patients with rib fractures to determine which provides better pain control, reduces opioid use, improves breathing outcomes, and is easier to perform in routine practice.

Our hypotheses are that ESP will provide better pain relief, SAP will be easier and safer to place, and both techniques will reduce opioid use while maintaining good patient comfort and breathing.

Eligibility criteria

This trial does not accept healthy volunteers

Qualifiers

Age >18;

Traumatic rib fractures (unilateral or bilateral);

Minimum of 3 rib fractures per side;

Admitted to hospital for <72 hours

Disqualifiers

Severe traumatic brain injury (Glasgow Coma Scale < 9);

Surgery performed/planned within 72 hours of catheter infusion start;

Uncontrolled coagulopathy;

Skin infection or anatomical abnormality (i.e. open fracture) at insertion sites;

Trial design

Design model

Parallel

Treatments tested in this trial

  • Erector spinae plane catheter

    Procedure/Surgery

    Participants receive erector spinae plane catheter infusion

  • Serratus plane catheter

    Procedure/Surgery

    Participants receive serratus plane catheter infusion

Treatment groups

66 Participants
are divided into 2 treatment groups
Group A: Erector spinae plane catheterActive comparator 1 intervention
Group B: Serratus plane catheterExperimental treatment 1 intervention

Trial outcomes

Primary outcomes

1

Pain with movement

Pain Numerical Rating Scale scores with movement from baseline through 72 hours post-placement. Numerical Rating Scale minimum is 0, maximum is 10, higher score = worse pain.

Time frame
72 hours

Secondary outcomes

1

Total opioid consumption

Total opioid consumption (IV and oral) between the SAP and ESP groups at 24, 48, and 72 hours post-catheter placement

Time frame
72 hours
2

Respiratory function

forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1), FEV1% of predicted, forced vital capacity (FVC), and peak inspiratory and expiratory flow will be measured using portable spirometry at baseline, 24 (± 4 hours), 48 (± 6 hours), and 72 (± 6 hours) hours post-catheter placement

Time frame
72 hours
3

Ease of catheter insertion between techniques

Number of skin puncture attempts

Time frame
At time of catheter insertion
4

Pain at rest

Pain Numerical Rating Scale scores at rest from baseline through 72 hours post-placement. Numerical Rating Scale minimum is 0, maximum is 10, higher score = worse pain.

Time frame
72 hours

Other outcomes

1

Patient satisfaction

Patient satisfaction scores using Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC)

Time frame
72 hours
2

Catheter-related complications

Catheter-related complications including infection, dislodgement, local anesthetic toxicity, and pneumothorax within the 72 hour study period

Time frame
72 hours
3

Catheter function

Duration of catheter function (days of infusion)

Time frame
Through hospital admission, an average of 7 days
4

Hospital length of stay

Total hospital length of stay (measured in days)

Time frame
Duration of hospital admission, an average of 7 days

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: