CClinicalTrials.gg
CompletedNCT03935412Updated Jul 23, 2019

The Analgesic Efficacy of Bilateral Erector Spinae Plane Block in Comparison With Intrathecal Morphine After Elective Cesarean Section

An interventional study of Erector Spinae Plane Block in Postoperative Pain, sponsored by Fayoum University. Completed at 1 site in Egypt. Open to female participants aged 18 Years to 40 Years, including healthy volunteers. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2019-07-23.

Sponsored by Fayoum University · Not applicable, Interventional, and Prevention

Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
140
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
18 Years to 40 Years
Sex
Female
01

Study summary

The aim of this study was to assess the analgesic efficacy of bilateral erector spinae plane block in comparison with intrathecal morphine after elective cesarean section under spinal anesthesia.

Read the detailed description

140 parturient scheduled for elective cesarean section. We obtained a written informed consent for anesthesia from each patient after explaining to them the nature of study and possible complications. Parturient were eligible for enrollment if they met the following inclusion criteria: Parturient aged 18 - 40 years , with American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status (ASA) class Ι, scheduled for elective cesarean section via a low transverse abdominal incision (Pfannenstiel) and receiving intrathecal anesthesia without sedation. Exclusion criteria included significant hepatic, renal or cardiovascular diseases, local infection, bleeding disorders, any contraindication to intrathecal anesthesia and parturient had a known allergy to the study drugs.

Participants were randomly divided into two groups (ITM; intrathecal morphine and ESPB; erector spinae plane block groups, with 70 participants in each) as simple randomization by computer-generated random numbers that were placed in separate opaque envelopes opened by responsible anesthesiologist just before intrathecal block. The participants, the study investigators and the data collectors were not aware of group allocation till the study end. Those in the ITM group were given 100 mcg of preservative-free morphine in addition local anesthetic (hyperbaric bupivacaine 10 mg) intrathecally during spinal anesthesia. While participants in the ESPB group were given only local anesthetic (hyperbaric bupivacaine 10 mg) intrathecally.

Preoperative investigations including electrocardiogram (ECG), complete blood picture, renal function tests, liver function tests, and coagulation profile were done. All parturient were fast for 8 h preoperatively. Upon arrival to the operating room IV access was obtained (one peripheral venous cannula 18G) and standard monitoring including pulse oximetry, ECG and noninvasive blood pressure were placed. And 10 ml.kg-1 of Ringer lactate solution will be infused over 15 minutes as a preload. The responsible anesthesiologist then asked the parturient to turn into sitting position where the skin on the back sterilized and; Spinal anesthesia performed via a midline approach into the L4-5 interspaces using a 25 gauge Quincke spinal needle after giving 3 ml of lidocaine 2% as a subcutaneous infiltration. After confirming free CSF flow through the needle a 10mg of hyperbaric bupivacaine 0.5 % was slowly injected for those in the ESPB group; and for those in the ITM group intrathecal injection of 10mg of hyperbaric bupivacaine 0.5 % in addition to 100 mcg of preservative-free morphine. Then, the parturient immediately placed in the supine position with 15° left tilt, and an oxygen mask was applied at 2 l.min-1. After ensuring sufficient anesthesia level, the surgical procedure was done with continuous hemodynamics monitoring and recording. If the systolic blood pressure (SBP) decreased to 20% below the baseline or less than 90 mmHg, ephedrine 5 mg will be administered intravenously. Also, if HR will be less than 50 beats/ min, atropine sulfate 0.5 mg will be administered intravenously. Upon delivery of the fetus, ten units of oxytocin were given by IV infusion.

By the end of surgery parturient in the ESPB underwent bilateral ESPB at the level of T9 using a linear ultrasound (US) transducer (Phillips Saronno Italy) the transducer was placed vertically3cm lateral to the midline to visualize the muscles of the back, transverse process and the pleura in between the two transverse processes. After local infiltration of the needle insertion site with 2-3 ml of 2% lidocaine 22-G short bevel needle (spinocan, B.Braun melsungen AG, Germany) was inserted in cranial-caudal direction towards the transvers process using in plane technique until the needle cross all the muscles then interfascial injection of 20ml 0.5% bupivacaine was done after ensuring negative aspiration, the procedure was repeated following the same steps on the other side of the back. While participants in the ITM group underwent sham blocks; Sham blocks consisted of a non-invasive ultrasound scan, while a blunt needle was gently pressed on both sides. We instructed the participants to report any signs of local anesthetic toxicity throughout injection e.g. change in mental status, anxiety, oral numbness and ringing in ears. For all participants spinal level and numerical rating scale were assessed and recorded before the block. At the end of surgery, parturient were transferred to postoperative anesthesia care unit (PACU) with standard monitoring applied. Any intraoperative or postoperative nausea or vomiting was managed with 10 mg metoclopramide. All participants received 30 mg ketorolac intravenously with the time of ESPB or sham blocks. Participants were transferred to obstetrics ward after fulfilling the criteria of modified Aldrete scoring system.

02

Conditions studied

  • Postoperative Pain

Browse trials for

Keywords

  • Erector spinae plane block
  • morphine
  • cesarean section
  • postoperative analgesia
  • spinal anesthesia
03

In context

Pain, Postoperative

5,093 studies on the registry are indexed under Pain, Postoperative; 1,140 are open to participants now.

This study's enrollment of 140 is above the median of 75 across 4,344 interventional studies indexed under Pain, Postoperative.

Browse Pain, Postoperative studies →

Lead sponsor

Fayoum University is the lead sponsor of 144 studies on the registry; 41 are open to participants now.

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

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years to 40 Years
Sexes eligible
Female
Accepts healthy volunteers
Yes

Inclusion criteria

  • American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status (ASA) class Ι, scheduled for elective cesarean section via a low transverse abdominal incision (Pfannenstiel) and receiving intrathecal anesthesia without sedation

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • included significant hepatic, renal or cardiovascular diseases, local infection, bleeding disorders, any contraindication to intrathecal anesthesia and parturient had a known allergy to the study drugs.
05

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Prevention
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
Triple (Participant, Care provider, Outcomes assessor)
Enrollment
140 participants (actual)

Study arms

  • Active comparator
    ES Erector Spinae Plane Block

    By the end of surgery parturient in the ESPB underwent bilateral ESPB at the level of T9 using a linear ultrasound (US) transducer (Phillips Saronno Italy) the transducer was placed vertically3cm lateral to the midline to visualize the muscles of the back, transverse process and the pleura in between the two transverse processes. After local infiltration of the needle insertion site with 2-3 ml of 2% lidocaine 22-G short bevel needle (spinocan, B.Braun melsungen AG, Germany) was inserted in cranial-caudal direction towards the transvers process using in plane technique until the needle cross all the muscles then interfascial injection of 20ml 0.5% bupivacaine was done after ensuring negative aspiration, the procedure was repeated following the same steps on the other side of the back.

    Procedure: Erector Spinae Plane Block

  • Sham comparator
    intrathecal morphine ITM

    participant in the ITM group intrathecal injection of 10mg of hyperbaric bupivacaine 0.5 % in addition to 100 mcg of preservative-free morphine. Then, the parturient immediately placed in the supine position with 15° left tilt, and an oxygen mask was applied at 2 l.min-1. After ensuring sufficient anesthesia level, the surgical procedure was done with continuous hemodynamics monitoring and recording. While participants in the ITM group underwent sham blocks; Sham blocks consisted of a non-invasive ultrasound scan, while a blunt needle was gently pressed on both sides.

    Procedure: Erector Spinae Plane Block

Interventions

  • ProcedureErector Spinae Plane Block

    Erector Spinae Plane Block

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. the severity of pain: VAS

    VAS

    Time frame: 8 hour

Secondary outcomes

  1. the total analgesic consumption

    AMOUNT

    Time frame: 24 hour

  2. the severity of pain: VAS

    VAS

    Time frame: immediately in PACU

  3. the severity of pain: VAS

    VAS

    Time frame: 4 hours

  4. the severity of pain: VAS

    VAS

    Time frame: 12 hours

  5. the severity of pain: VAS

    VAS

    Time frame: 16 hours

  6. the severity of pain: VAS

    VAS

    Time frame: 24 hours

  7. the time for the first analgesic request

    time

    Time frame: 24 hours

  8. Participants' satisfaction

    postoperative

    Time frame: 24 hours

07

Study locations

1 site
  • Faculty of Medicine
    Fayoum, 63511, Egypt
08

References and documents

Publications

  • Ueshima H, Otake H. Similarities Between the Retrolaminar and Erector Spinae Plane Blocks. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2017 Jan/Feb;42(1):123-124. doi: 10.1097/AAP.0000000000000526. No abstract available. PubMed 27997492 ↗
  • Leung AY. Postoperative pain management in obstetric anesthesia--new challenges and solutions. J Clin Anesth. 2004 Feb;16(1):57-65. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinane.2003.02.012. PubMed 14984863 ↗
09

Updates

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Jul 23, 2019, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT03935412
Lead sponsor
Fayoum University
Responsible party
Mohamed hamed (mohamed ahmed hamed, Fayoum University) — Principal investigator
First posted
May 2, 2019
Start date
Mar 5, 2019
Primary completion
Jul 1, 2019
Completion
Jul 5, 2019
Last update
Jul 23, 2019

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 Jul 2019. 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