CClinicalTrials.gg
CompletedNCT03746418Updated Nov 20, 2018

Effect of Addition of Dexmedetomidine During Ultrasound Guided Bilateral Single Shot Erector Spinae Plane Block in Patients Undergoing Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion Under General Anesthesia

An Early Phase 1 interventional study of Ultrasound Guided Bilateral single shot Erector Spinae Plane Block in Double Level Lumbar Spondylolisthesis (L3-L5), Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion (PLIF) and Lumbar Fixation Surgery, sponsored by Tanta University. Completed at 1 site in Egypt. Open to participants aged 18 Years to 60 Years, including healthy volunteers. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2018-11-20.

Sponsored by Tanta University · Early Phase 1, Interventional, and Prevention

From the registry’s dates

  • Primary completion was Jan 2018, 8 years 9 months ago, and no results have been posted to the registry.
  • Registered 2 years 10 months after the study started (first participant enrolled Jan 2016, registered Nov 2018).
Phase
Early Phase 1
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
40
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
18 Years to 60 Years
Sex
All
01

Study summary

Posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) is the management of choice in double level lumbar (L) spondylolisthesis (L3-L5) after ineffective conservative treatment. We evaluated bilateral ultrasound (US)-guided single shot erector spinae plane (ESP) block at the level of lumbar 3 (L3) vertebra with or without dexmedetomidine (Dex).

Read the detailed description

Objectives: Posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) is the management of choice in double level lumbar (L) spondylolisthesis (L3-L5) after ineffective conservative treatment. We evaluated bilateral ultrasound (US)-guided single shot erector spinae plane (ESP) block at the level of lumbar 3 (L3) vertebra with or without dexmedetomidine (Dex).

Methods: A prospective controlled randomized, double-blind study comparing two groups of patients; each group included 20 patients of double level spondylolisthesis (L3-L5) scheduled for (PLIF) under general anesthesia combined with bilateral US-guided ESP single shot block at (L3). Group I received 20 ml of 0. 25% bupivacaine plus one mL normal saline bilaterally. Group II received 20 ml of 0.25% bupivacaine with supplementation of 1 mL containing 100µg dexmedetomidine bilaterally. Post-Anesthesia Care Unit (PACU) length of stay, the total dose of postoperative analgesics need, postoperative visual analogue score (VAS) at 1h, 6h, 12h, and 24 h after the operation and postoperative complications which related to block or opioids were recorded.

ESP block at combined with (Dex) is a safe, effective block with no complications. Addition of 100µg Dex to preoperative ESP block provided good postoperative opioid-sparing analgesia, facilitated the early emergence and shortened the length of stay in the PACU during (PLIF) for double level spondylolisthesis (L3-L5).

02

Conditions studied

  • Double Level Lumbar Spondylolisthesis (L3-L5)
  • Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion (PLIF)
  • Lumbar Fixation Surgery

Browse trials for

Keywords

  • erector spinae
  • dexmedetomidine
  • ultrasound
  • lumbar interbody fusion
  • spondylolisthesis
03

In context

Spondylolisthesis

237 studies on the registry are indexed under Spondylolisthesis; 47 are open to participants now.

This study's enrollment of 40 is below the median of 60 across 149 interventional studies indexed under Spondylolisthesis.

Browse Spondylolisthesis studies →

Lead sponsor

Tanta University is the lead sponsor of 963 studies on the registry; 304 are open to participants now.

Of its 16 completed or terminated interventional studies of FDA-regulated products, 0 (0%) have results posted.

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

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years to 60 Years
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
Yes

Inclusion criteria

  • belonged to the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I or II
  • either sex
  • aged 18-60 years
  • body mass index less 35 kg/m2
  • complaining from double level lumbar spondylolisthesis (L3-L5)
  • scheduled for elective surgical intervention aimed at lumbar spine fixation by PLIF - under general anesthesia.

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • obesity (body mass index > 35 kg/m2)
  • infection of the skin at the site of the needle puncture
  • allergies to either of the study drugs
  • bleeding disorder
  • and recent use of opioid.
05

Study design

Phase
Early Phase 1
Primary purpose
Prevention
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
Triple (Care provider, Investigator, Outcomes assessor)
Enrollment
40 participants (actual)

Study arms

  • Placebo comparator
    Group I

    received 20 ml of 0. 25% bupivacaine plus one mL normal saline bilaterally.

    Drug: Ultrasound Guided Bilateral single shot Erector Spinae Plane Block

  • Active comparator
    Group II

    received 20 ml of 0.25% bupivacaine with supplementation of 1 mL containing 100µg dexmedetomidine bilaterally

    Drug: Ultrasound Guided Bilateral single shot Erector Spinae Plane Block

Interventions

  • DrugUltrasound Guided Bilateral single shot Erector Spinae Plane Block

    Under aseptic technique and after skin infiltration with 3 ml of 2% lidocaine, a 22G, 50-mm, insulated facet type needle (visioplex® - vygon - France) was introduced in plane in a cephalad to caudad direction until (L3) transverse process was hit \[figure1(A)(B)(C)\] and the needle was slightly withdrawn. The confirmation of the correct position of the needle tip was done by injecting 0.5-1 ml of LA. Once confirmed, 20 ml of the drug was administered under vision after confirming negative aspiration of blood. LA distribution was observed in both cranial and caudal directions. This was repeated on the other side also. Twenty minutes later, sensory loss to cold was evident between (T10-T 12) and (L5-S1) vertebral level of the posterior dermatomes and dermatomes of the anterior roots of the spinal nerves (lumbar plexus, upper leg) on both sides without hemodynamic changes. Motor function of the legs was evaluated with a Bromage (0-3) score.

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. changes in Post-Anesthesia Care Unit (PACU) length of stay

    assessment of changes in the Post-Anesthesia Care Unit (PACU) length of stay in (minutes) during the first 24 hours was reported.

    Time frame: at 1hours, 6hours, 12hours, and 24 hours after the operation

  2. changes in the total dose of postoperative analgesics need

    assessment of changes in the total dose of postoperative analgesics need in the first 24 hours were reported.

    Time frame: at 1hours, 6hours, 12hours, and 24 hours after the operation

  3. changes in postoperative visual analogue score (VAS)

    assessment of changes in the postoperative visual analogue score (VAS)in the first 24 hours was reported. Scoring and Interpretation: Using a ruler, the score is determined by measuring the distance (mm) on the 10-cm line between the "no pain" anchor and the patient's mark, providing a range of scores from 0-100. A higher score indicates greater pain intensity. Based on the distribution of pain VAS scores in post-surgical patients who described their postoperative pain intensity as none, mild, moderate, or severe, the following cut points on the pain VAS have been recommended: no pain (0-4 mm), mild pain(5-44 mm), moderate pain (45-74 mm), and severe pain (75-100 mm) . Normative values are not available. The scale has to be shown to the patient otherwise it is an auditory scale, not a visual one.

    Time frame: at 1hours, 6hours, 12hours, and 24 hours after the operation

  4. changes in recovery time

    assessment of changes in the recovery time length in (minutes) during the first 24 hours was reported.

    Time frame: at 1hours, 6hours, 12hours, and 24 hours after the operation

07

Study locations

1 site
  • Ahmed Said Elgebaly
    Tanta, Egypt
08

References and documents

Publications

  • Chaudhary NK, Singh S. Continuous ultrasound-guidederector spinae plane block for post-operative pain management in lumbar spine surgery: A case series. Indian J Anaesth. 2018 Aug;62(8):638-639. doi: 10.4103/ija.IJA_160_18. No abstract available. PubMed 30166664 ↗
  • Melvin JP, Schrot RJ, Chu GM, Chin KJ. Low thoracic erector spinae plane block for perioperative analgesia in lumbosacral spine surgery: a case series. Can J Anaesth. 2018 Sep;65(9):1057-1065. doi: 10.1007/s12630-018-1145-8. Epub 2018 Apr 27. PubMed 29704223 ↗
  • Zhang S, Ye C, Lai Q, Yu X, Liu X, Nie T, Zhan H, Dai M, Zhang B. Double-level lumbar spondylolysis and spondylolisthesis: A retrospective study. J Orthop Surg Res. 2018 Mar 16;13(1):55. doi: 10.1186/s13018-018-0723-3. PubMed 29548343 ↗
  • Adhikary SD, Bernard S, Lopez H, Chin KJ. Erector Spinae Plane Block Versus Retrolaminar Block: A Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Anatomical Study. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2018 Oct;43(7):756-762. doi: 10.1097/AAP.0000000000000798. PubMed 29794943 ↗

Individual participant data

Plan to share: Undecided

09

Updates

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Nov 20, 2018, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT03746418
Lead sponsor
Tanta University
Collaborators
mona bologh elmorad,MD, mohmed naser shaddad,MD
Responsible party
Ahmed Said Elgebaly,MD (director, Tanta University) — Principal investigator
First posted
Nov 19, 2018
Start date
Jan 1, 2016
Primary completion
Jan 1, 2018
Completion
Sep 1, 2018
Last update
Nov 20, 2018

Oversight

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

Not currently enrolling

This study is completed, as verified in Nov 2018. 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