CClinicalTrials.gg
CompletedNCT03744065Updated Jun 4, 2020

Lumbar Plexus and Suprainguinal Fascia Iliaca Blocks For Total Hip Replacement

An interventional study of lumbar plexus block and suprainguinal fascia iliaca block in Hip Osteoarthritis, Pain, Acute and Pain, Postoperative, sponsored by University of Chile. Completed at 1 site in Chile. Open to participants aged 18 Years to 80 Years. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2020-06-04.

Sponsored by University of Chile · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment

Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
60
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
18 Years to 80 Years
Sex
All
01

Study summary

The nerves from lumbar plexus (LP) are the current target to achieve analgesia after a total hip arthroplasty (THA). Lumbar plexus block (LPB) is an alternative that provides optimal postoperative analgesia. However, many adverse effects and complications have been reported due to its proximity to vital structures. Because of these shortcomings, an alternative to block the LP nerves is required.

In a recent trial suprainguinal Fascia Iliaca Block (SFIB) was reported to provide reliable analgesia in THA. SFIB may carry a lower risk profile, however, no study has compared the efficacy of LPB and SFIB in this setting.

Thus, this randomized trial is set out to compare US guided LPB and SFIB for analgesia after THA. The hypothesis is that both blocks would result in similar postoperative opioid (morphine) consumption at 24 hours and, therefore, designed the study as an equivalence trial.

02

Conditions studied

  • Hip Osteoarthritis
  • Pain, Acute
  • Pain, Postoperative
  • Opioid Use

Keywords

  • nerve block
  • fascia iliaca
  • hip replacement
  • lumbar plexus
03

In context

Osteoarthritis, Hip

628 studies on the registry are indexed under Osteoarthritis, Hip; 121 are open to participants now.

This study's enrollment of 60 is below the median of 90 across 450 interventional studies indexed under Osteoarthritis, Hip.

Browse Osteoarthritis, Hip studies →

Lead sponsor

University of Chile is the lead sponsor of 191 studies on the registry; 36 are open to participants now.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years to 80 Years
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

  • Age between 18 and 80 years
  • American Society of Anesthesiologists classification 1-3
  • Body mass index between 20 and 35 (kg/m2)

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Adults who are unable to give their own consent
  • Pre-existing neuropathy (assessed by history and physical examination)
  • Coagulopathy (assessed by history and physical examination and, if deemed clinically necessary, by blood work up i.e. platelets ≤ 100, International Normalized Ratio ≥ 1.4 or prothrombin time ≥ 50)
  • Renal failure (assessed by history and physical examination and, if deemed clinically necessary, by blood work up i.e. creatinine ≥ 100)
  • Hepatic failure (assessed by history and physical examination and, if deemed clinically necessary, by blood work up i.e. transaminases ≥ 100)
  • Allergy to local anesthetics (LAs) or morphine
  • Pregnancy
  • Prior surgery in the corresponding side of the lumbar o suprainguinal area
  • Chronic pain syndromes requiring opioid intake at home
05

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
Double (Investigator, Outcomes assessor)
Enrollment
60 participants (actual)

Study arms

  • Active comparator
    Lumbar plexus block

    Patients randomized to receive an ultrasound-guided lumbar plexus block

    Procedure: lumbar plexus block

  • Experimental
    Suprainguinal fascia iliaca block

    Patients randomized to receive an ultrasound-guided suprainguinal fascia iliaca block

    Procedure: suprainguinal fascia iliaca block

Interventions

  • Procedurelumbar plexus block

    Injection with ultrasound guidance of 40 mL of levobupivacaine 0.25% with 5 micrograms of epinephrine per mL and dexamethasone 4 milligrams, in the posteromedial quadrant of psoas muscle

  • Proceduresuprainguinal fascia iliaca block

    Injection with ultrasound guidance of 40 mL of levobupivacaine 0.25% with 5 micrograms of epinephrine per mL and dexamethasone 4 milligrams, underneath the fascia iliaca at the suprainguinal level

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Morphine consumption over 24 hours

    Total morphine consumption over 24 hours post block

    Time frame: 24 hours post block

Secondary outcomes

  1. Performance time

    Interval between the start of skin disinfection and the end of local anesthetic injection

    Time frame: 2 hours after surgery

  2. Number of needle passes

    The initial needle insertion counted as the first pass. Any subsequent needle advancement that is preceded by a retraction of at least 10 mm counts as an additional pass

    Time frame: 2 hours after surgery

  3. Postoperative static pain at 3 hours after block

    Pain evaluated in Numeric Rating Score from 0 to 10 points

    Time frame: 3 hours after the block

  4. Postoperative static pain at 6 hours after block

    Pain evaluated in Numeric Rating Score from 0 to 10 points

    Time frame: 6 hours after the block

  5. Postoperative static pain at 12 hours after block

    Pain evaluated in Numeric Rating Score from 0 to 10 points

    Time frame: 12 hours after the block

  6. Postoperative static pain at 24 hours after block

    Pain evaluated in Numeric Rating Score from 0 to 10 points

    Time frame: 24 hours after the block

  7. Postoperative dynamic pain at 3 hours after block

    Pain evaluated in Numeric Rating Score from 0 to 10 points

    Time frame: 3 hours after the block

  8. Postoperative dynamic pain at 6 hours after block

    Pain evaluated in Numeric Rating Score from 0 to 10 points

    Time frame: 6 hours after the block

  9. Postoperative dynamic pain at 12 hours after block

    Pain evaluated in Numeric Rating Score from 0 to 10 points

    Time frame: 12 hours after the block

  10. Postoperative dynamic pain at 24 hours after block

    Pain evaluated in Numeric Rating Score from 0 to 10 points

    Time frame: 24 hours after the block

  11. Postoperative static pain at 48 hours after block

    Pain evaluated in Numeric Rating Score from 0 to 10 points

    Time frame: 48 hours after the block

  12. Postoperative dynamic pain at 48 hours after block

    Pain evaluated in Numeric Rating Score from 0 to 10 points

    Time frame: 48 hours after the block

  13. Time until first morphine demand

    Time until first patient-controlled analgesia morphine demand

    Time frame: 48 hours after the block

  14. Block assessment at 3 hours

    Sensorimotor block assessed using a 10-point composite score evaluating sensory block of the lateral femoral cutaneous, femoral and obturator nerves, and motor block of femoral and obturator nerves. Sensation will be assessed with ice on then lateral, anterior and medial thigh using a 0 to 2 point scale. 0= no block, patients can feel cold; 1= analgesic block, patient can feel touch but not cold; 2= anesthetic block, patient cannot feel cold or touch. Motor function will be assessed for each nerve with a 0 to 2 points scale where 0= no motor block; 1= paresis; 2= paralysis.

    Time frame: 3 hours after the block

  15. Block assessment at 6 hours

    Sensorimotor block assessed using a 10-point composite score evaluating sensory block of the lateral femoral cutaneous, femoral and obturator nerves, and motor block of femoral and obturator nerves. Sensation will be assessed with ice on then lateral, anterior and medial thigh using a 0 to 2 point scale. 0= no block, patients can feel cold; 1= analgesic block, patient can feel touch but not cold; 2= anesthetic block, patient cannot feel cold or touch. Motor function will be assessed for each nerve with a 0 to 2 points scale where 0= no motor block; 1= paresis; 2= paralysis.

    Time frame: 6 hours after the block

  16. Block assessment at 24 hours

    Sensorimotor block assessed using a 10-point composite score evaluating sensory block of the lateral femoral cutaneous, femoral and obturator nerves, and motor block of femoral and obturator nerves. Sensation will be assessed with ice on then lateral, anterior and medial thigh using a 0 to 2 point scale. 0= no block, patients can feel cold; 1= analgesic block, patient can feel touch but not cold; 2= anesthetic block, patient cannot feel cold or touch. Motor function will be assessed for each nerve with a 0 to 2 points scale where 0= no motor block; 1= paresis; 2= paralysis.

    Time frame: 24 hours after the block

  17. Incidence of block related adverse events

    Incidence of adverse events related to nerve block (vascular puncture, local anesthetic systemic toxicity, epidural spread)

    Time frame: 3 hours after block

  18. Incidence of opioid related adverse events

    Incidence of adverse events related to opioid use (nausea/vomiting, pruritus, somnolence, respiratory depression)

    Time frame: 48 hours after block

  19. Incidence of Inability to perform physiotherapy

    Inability to perform physiotherapy due to pain (score more than 4 in Numeric Rating Score from 0 to 10 points) or motor blockade.

    Time frame: 24 hours after the block

  20. Surgical duration

    Time between skin incision and closure

    Time frame: 4 hours

  21. Readiness to discharge

    Days to be ready for discharge following physiotherapist criteria

    Time frame: 4 days after surgery

  22. Length of hospital stay

    Length of hospital stay after surgery

    Time frame: 7 days after surgery

07

Study locations

1 site
  • Hospital Clínico Universidad de Chile
    Santiago, Metropolitana 8380456, Chile
08

References and documents

Publications

  • Siddiqui ZI, Cepeda MS, Denman W, Schumann R, Carr DB. Continuous lumbar plexus block provides improved analgesia with fewer side effects compared with systemic opioids after hip arthroplasty: a randomized controlled trial. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2007 Sep-Oct;32(5):393-8. doi: 10.1016/j.rapm.2007.04.008. PubMed 17961837 ↗
  • Klein SM, D'Ercole F, Greengrass RA, Warner DS. Enoxaparin associated with psoas hematoma and lumbar plexopathy after lumbar plexus block. Anesthesiology. 1997 Dec;87(6):1576-9. doi: 10.1097/00000542-199712000-00040. No abstract available. PubMed 9416746 ↗
  • Aida S, Takahashi H, Shimoji K. Renal subcapsular hematoma after lumbar plexus block. Anesthesiology. 1996 Feb;84(2):452-5. doi: 10.1097/00000542-199602000-00027. No abstract available. PubMed 8602680 ↗
  • Aveline C, Bonnet F. Delayed retroperitoneal haematoma after failed lumbar plexus block. Br J Anaesth. 2004 Oct;93(4):589-91. doi: 10.1093/bja/aeh242. Epub 2004 Aug 20. PubMed 15321930 ↗
  • Weller RS, Gerancher JC, Crews JC, Wade KL. Extensive retroperitoneal hematoma without neurologic deficit in two patients who underwent lumbar plexus block and were later anticoagulated. Anesthesiology. 2003 Feb;98(2):581-5. doi: 10.1097/00000542-200302000-00044. No abstract available. PubMed 12552223 ↗
  • Gentili M, Aveline C, Bonnet F. [Total spinal anesthesia after posterior lumbar plexus block]. Ann Fr Anesth Reanim. 1998;17(7):740-2. doi: 10.1016/s0750-7658(98)80112-3. French. PubMed 9750813 ↗
  • Pousman RM, Mansoor Z, Sciard D. Total spinal anesthetic after continuous posterior lumbar plexus block. Anesthesiology. 2003 May;98(5):1281-2. doi: 10.1097/00000542-200305000-00034. No abstract available. PubMed 12717153 ↗
  • Duarte LT, Saraiva RA. [Total spinal block after posterior lumbar plexus blockade: case report.]. Rev Bras Anestesiol. 2006 Oct;56(5):518-23. doi: 10.1590/s0034-70942006000500010. Portuguese. PubMed 19468598 ↗
  • Dogan Z, Bakan M, Idin K, Esen A, Uslu FB, Ozturk E. Total spinal block after lumbar plexus block: a case report. Braz J Anesthesiol. 2014 Mar-Apr;64(2):121-3. doi: 10.1016/j.bjane.2013.03.002. Epub 2013 Oct 11. PubMed 24794455 ↗
  • Gadsden JC, Lindenmuth DM, Hadzic A, Xu D, Somasundarum L, Flisinski KA. Lumbar plexus block using high-pressure injection leads to contralateral and epidural spread. Anesthesiology. 2008 Oct;109(4):683-8. doi: 10.1097/ALN.0b013e31818631a7. PubMed 18813048 ↗
  • Auroy Y, Benhamou D, Bargues L, Ecoffey C, Falissard B, Mercier FJ, Bouaziz H, Samii K. Major complications of regional anesthesia in France: The SOS Regional Anesthesia Hotline Service. Anesthesiology. 2002 Nov;97(5):1274-80. doi: 10.1097/00000542-200211000-00034. Erratum In: Anesthesiology. 2003 Feb;98(2):595. Mercier Frederic [corrected to Mercier Frederic J]. PubMed 12411815 ↗
  • Dalens B, Vanneuville G, Tanguy A. Comparison of the fascia iliaca compartment block with the 3-in-1 block in children. Anesth Analg. 1989 Dec;69(6):705-13. Erratum In: Anesth Analg 1990 Apr;70(4):474. PubMed 2589650 ↗
  • Dolan J, Williams A, Murney E, Smith M, Kenny GN. Ultrasound guided fascia iliaca block: a comparison with the loss of resistance technique. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2008 Nov-Dec;33(6):526-31. doi: 10.1016/j.rapm.2008.03.008. PubMed 19258967 ↗
  • Kumar K, Pandey RK, Bhalla AP, Kashyap L, Garg R, Darlong V, Malhotra R, Yadav CS. Comparison of conventional infrainguinal versus modified proximal suprainguinal approach of Fascia Iliaca Compartment Block for postoperative analgesia in Total Hip Arthroplasty. A prospective randomized study. Acta Anaesthesiol Belg. 2015;66(3):95-100. PubMed 26767235 ↗
  • Hebbard P, Ivanusic J, Sha S. Ultrasound-guided supra-inguinal fascia iliaca block: a cadaveric evaluation of a novel approach. Anaesthesia. 2011 Apr;66(4):300-5. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.2011.06628.x. Epub 2011 Feb 24. PubMed 21401544 ↗
  • Desmet M, Vermeylen K, Van Herreweghe I, Carlier L, Soetens F, Lambrecht S, Croes K, Pottel H, Van de Velde M. A Longitudinal Supra-Inguinal Fascia Iliaca Compartment Block Reduces Morphine Consumption After Total Hip Arthroplasty. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2017 May/Jun;42(3):327-333. doi: 10.1097/AAP.0000000000000543. PubMed 28059869 ↗
  • Sauter AR, Ullensvang K, Niemi G, Lorentzen HT, Bendtsen TF, Borglum J, Pripp AH, Romundstad L. The Shamrock lumbar plexus block: A dose-finding study. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2015 Nov;32(11):764-70. doi: 10.1097/EJA.0000000000000265. PubMed 26426575 ↗
  • Arnuntasupakul V, Chalachewa T, Leurcharusmee P, Tiyaprasertkul W, Finlayson RJ, Tran DQ. Ultrasound with neurostimulation compared with ultrasound guidance alone for lumbar plexus block: A randomised single blinded equivalence trial. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2018 Mar;35(3):224-230. doi: 10.1097/EJA.0000000000000736. PubMed 29135692 ↗

Individual participant data

Plan to share: No

09

Updates

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Jun 4, 2020, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT03744065
Lead sponsor
University of Chile
Responsible party
Daniela Bravo Advis (Assistant Professor, University of Chile) — Principal investigator
First posted
Nov 16, 2018
Start date
Nov 19, 2018
Primary completion
Jan 22, 2020
Completion
Jan 23, 2020
Last update
Jun 4, 2020

Study contacts

Daniela Bravo, MD
principal investigator · University of Chile

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is completed, as verified in Jun 2020. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion