ClinicalTrials.gg
Not yet recruitingNCT06772545Updated Jan 14, 2025

Study on the Effects of Multimodal Analgesia Regimens on Postoperative Analgesia and Gastrointestinal Function Recovery After Laparoscopic Abdominal Surgery

An interventional study of Epidural Analgesia and Paravertebral Block in Laparoscopic Abdominal Surgery, sponsored by Xiaguang Duan. Not yet recruiting. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2025-01-14.

Sponsored by Xiaguang Duan · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment

From the registry’s dates

  • Primary completion was expected by May 2025, 1 year 6 months ago, but the record still lists the study as not yet recruiting.
Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
120
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
18 Years and older
Sex
All
01

Study summary

This clinical trial aims to investigate the impact of multimodal analgesia regimens on postoperative pain management and gastrointestinal function recovery following laparoscopic abdominal surgery. The primary objectives are to determine:

Which analgesic regimen is most effective in reducing postoperative pain? Which analgesic regimen is most effective in accelerating gastrointestinal function recovery? This study will compare epidural analgesia (EA), paravertebral block (PB), transversus abdominis plane block (TAP), and patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIA) to identify the optimal method for pain control and the most beneficial for gastrointestinal recovery.

Participants will receive one of the following treatments postoperatively: epidural analgesia, paravertebral block, TAP block, or patient-controlled intravenous analgesia. Rest pain (measured using the Numerical Rating Scale, NRS), dynamic pain (NRS), morphine equivalent consumption (mg), quality of sleep on the first night (Likert scale, 1-5), time to return of bowel function (h), time to recommence oral intake (h), time to first mobilization (h), quality of recovery (QoR, 0-15) on postoperative day 1, and length of hospital stay (days) will be recorded at 4, 8, 12, and 24 hours post-procedure.

Read the detailed description

Study design:This is a prospective, randomized, comparative, double-blind study designed to assess the superiority and non-inferiority of four analgesic techniques: epidural analgesia (EA), paravertebral block (PB), transversus abdominis plane block (TAP), and patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIA). The study will evaluate the effectiveness of these methods for pain management in patients undergoing laparoscopic abdominal surgery. Patients will be recruited at Baogang Hospital in Inner Mongolia. This study was approved by the Medical Ethics Committee of Baogang Hospital, Inner Mongolia, and adhered to the Declaration of Helsinki and the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guidelines. All participants provided informed consent voluntarily.

Patients:A total of 120 patients undergoing laparoscopic abdominal surgery, classified as American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I-III, will be recruited between February and May 2025. These patients will be randomly assigned to one of four groups, with 30 patients in each group. Randomization and Blinding:This study employed block randomization to generate the random allocation sequence. A block size of 6 was set, and the random sequence was generated using dedicated software (the blockrand package in R version 4.3.2). The allocation of the random sequence was performed by an independent third party, and allocation concealment was implemented using sequentially numbered, sealed, opaque envelopes. The research team remained blinded throughout the randomization process and was not involved in the generation or allocation of the random sequence.

Intervention: General anesthesia and monitoring Upon arrival in the operating room, patients were monitored for pulse oximetry (SPO2), electrocardiogram (ECG), bispectral index (BIS), and non-invasive arterial blood pressure. Pain threshold (PTh, mA) and pain tolerance threshold (PTTh, mA) were measured and recorded. Patients received pre-operative administration of Penehyclidine Hydrochloride Injection (Lot H20051948, Chengdu List Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., China) (0.01 mg kg-1 i.v.). Induction was achieved with propofol (1.5-2 mg kg-1 i.v.), rocuronium bromide (1-2 mg kg-1 i.v.), and fentanyl (1-2 μg kg-1 i.v.). Anesthesia was maintained with inhaled sevoflurane or desflurane, with the inhaled concentration adjusted according to BIS values. Remifentanil (0.05-0.2 μg kg-1 min-1 i.v.) was continuously infused to maintain blood pressure and heart rate within ±20% of baseline values. Mechanical ventilation was initiated in pressure-regulated volume control (PRVC) mode after induction. Ventilator settings (Aestiva; GE Healthcare, Waukesha, Wisconsin, USA) were as follows: tidal volume 6-8 ml kg-1, positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) 0 cmH2O, inspiratory-to-expiratory ratio 1:2, respiratory rate 16 beats per minute (BPM), and inspired oxygen concentration 41%. The patient was positioned in the Trendelenburg position, with the operating table tilted 20-25° head down. Carbon dioxide pneumoperitoneum was established at an intra-abdominal pressure of 10-15 mmHg.

Postoperative care Vital signs were monitored in the Post Anesthesia Care Unit (PACU), with supplemental oxygen provided via facemask. For hypotension, ephedrine (6-10 mg) was administered, and fluid administration was increased. Atropine (0.3-0.5 mg) was given for bradycardia. For pain, sufentanil (0.1-0.2 μg/kg) was administered.

Data collection Upon arrival in the operating room, heart rate (HR, bpm), mean arterial pressure (MAP, mmHg) (calculated as MAP = diastolic pressure + 1/3 pulse pressure), BIS, remifentanil dosage (mg), ephedrine dosage (mg), duration of surgery (minutes), and duration of anesthesia (minutes) were recorded for all patients.

In the PACU, the following data were recorded: number of patients requiring sufentanil (μg), number of patients experiencing respiratory depression (n), number of hypotension events requiring intervention (n), ephedrine dosage (mg), intravenous fluid volume (ml), number of patients experiencing bradycardia (n), atropine dosage (mg), Bromage score, and time spent in the PACU (min). For patients transferred to the high dependency unit, the number of patients (n) and length of stay (h) were recorded.

Postoperatively, rest pain (Numerical Rating Scale, NRS), dynamic pain (NRS), morphine equivalent (mg), quality of sleep on the first night (Likert scale, 1-5), functional recovery (return of bowel function, h, recommencement of oral intake, h, and time to first mobilization, h), quality of recovery (QoR, 0-15) on postoperative day 1, and hospital stay (days) were recorded at 4, 8, 12, and 24 hours. Ketorolac dosage (mg), hydromorphone dosage (mg), oral medications, number of episodes of PONV (n), antiemetic dosage (mg), number of episodes of pruritus (n), and Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI) were recorded over 24 hours.

Outcomes and measures:Patient follow-up was conducted in the ward by two specially trained nurses who were blinded to patient group assignment. Assessments, including those for postoperative day 1 and length of hospital stay, were performed in person at 4, 8, 12, and 24 hours post-procedure.

02

Conditions studied

  • Laparoscopic Abdominal Surgery
03

In context

Lead sponsor

Xiaguang Duan is the lead sponsor of 11 studies on the registry; 7 are open to participants now.

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

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years and older
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No

Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.

Inclusion criteria

  • >18 years old
  • Ability to understand and voluntarily sign the form
  • No prior use of long-acting or addictive analgesic drugs before surgery.

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • History of previous abdominal surgery
  • Presence of severe cardiovascular, respiratory, hepatic, renal, neurological, or psychiatric disorders
  • Pre-existing chronic pain conditions
  • Known allergy to any analgesic drugs used in this study
  • Presence of spinal deformities, neurological conditions, or coagulopathy that may affect the performance of regional anesthesia.
  • Pregnant or breastfeeding women
  • Inability to cooperate with study procedures or understand pain rating scales
  • History of opioid abuse or addiction.
Terms in these criteria, in plain language(2)

Underlined terms in the criteria open these too. Explained by clinicaltrials.gg, not part of the registry record. The study team decides who can take part.

ASA physical status

The anaesthetists’ scale of health before surgery: I is healthy, II has a mild illness that is under control, III a severe one, IV a severe illness that is a constant threat to life. V and VI are used for the critically ill and for organ donors.

Informed consent

Before you join, the study team explains what taking part involves — its purpose, what happens, the risks and possible benefits — and answers your questions, so you can decide freely. Consent is usually recorded on a form (the informed consent form, ICF) signed by you or, where the law allows, by someone legally authorised to decide for you.

You can keep asking questions during the study, you are told of new information that matters, and you can choose to leave at any time.

05

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
Quadruple (Participant, Care provider, Investigator, Outcomes assessor)
Enrollment
120 participants (estimated)

Study arms

  • Experimental
    EA

    Epidural Analgesia

    Procedure: Epidural Analgesia

  • Experimental
    PB

    Paravertebral Block

    Device: Paravertebral Block

  • Experimental
    TAP

    Transversus Abdominis Plane Block

    Device: Transversus Abdominis Plane Block

  • Active comparator
    PCIA

    Patient-Controlled Intravenous Analgesia

    Device: patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCA)

Interventions

  • ProcedureEpidural Analgesia

    Patients in the EA group underwent epidural anesthesia after admission to the operating room. Following successful epidural puncture, 3 ml of 2% lidocaine was administered. Once the block level was confirmed, the epidural analgesia pump was activated, delivering 8 ml/h of 0.1% ropivacaine.

  • DeviceParavertebral Block

    Using an in-plane technique, the puncture needle was advanced from lateral to medial under real-time ultrasound guidance to the target paravertebral space, passing through the intercostal fascia, avoiding the parietal pleura, and positioning the needle tip superior to the costotransverse ligament. After confirming needle tip placement, 10 mL of 0.5% ropivacaine was slowly injected in divided doses, observing for the spread of the local anesthetic to ensure adequate distribution within the PVS for effective block.

  • DeviceTransversus Abdominis Plane Block

    The plane of blockade and whether to perform a single or double injection technique were determined based on the incision location. Under real-time ultrasound guidance, the puncture needle was advanced to the target transversus abdominis plane. After confirming needle tip placement, 10 mL of 0.5% ropivacaine was injected slowly in a fractionated manner while observing the local anesthetic spread to ensure effective blockade.

  • Devicepatient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCA)

    The patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) device was programmed to deliver bolus doses of 15 μg fentanyl, with a 10-minute lockout period and no background infusion. The PCA solution consisted of 1 mg fentanyl and 8 mg of tropisetron mixed in 100 mL of normal saline.

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Numerical Rating Scale(NRS)

    The NRS, Numerical Rating Scale, is a rating system from 0 to 10, where 0 represents "no pain" and 10 represents the worst possible pain.

    Time frame: at 4 hours post-treatment, 8 hours post-treatment, 12 hours post-treatment, and 24 hours post-treatment

Secondary outcomes

  1. Functional recovery Return bowel function(h)

    A participant was considered to have achieved a response if their performance status score was either 0 or 72 hours, on a scale where 0 represented the best outcome and 72 the worst outcome.

    Time frame: At 72 hours post-surgery

07

Study locations

No study locations are listed for this record.

08

References and documents

Individual participant data

Plan to share: Yes

Supporting information: Study protocol, Statistical analysis plan, Informed consent form, Clinical study report

Time frame: January 2026-January 2036

Access criteria: A proposal that describes planned analyses must be submitted or whether a data sharing agreement must be signed.

No publications or documents are linked to this record.

09

Timeline

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
ElapsedEstimatedEstimated, not yet reached

Start is estimated for Feb 2025; primary completion for May 2025, 3 months later.

How these figures are worked out, and which studies are left out of them.

Registered
Jan 10, 2025
First posted
Jan 13, 2025
StartEst.
Feb 1, 2025
Primary completionEst.
May 1, 2025
CompletionEst.
May 10, 2025
Last update
Jan 14, 2025
What these dates mean
Start.
When the first participant enrolled; while estimated, when the study expects to open to recruitment.
Primary completion.
When the last participant was examined or treated to collect data for the study's main question, its primary outcome. A study that stopped early gives the date its data collection stopped.
Completion.
When the last participant's last visit took place, for every outcome, secondary ones and side effects included: the end of the study. Often later than primary completion, sometimes the same day.
Actual and Est.
Actual means the registry says the date has happened. Est. (estimated) is a date the sponsor plans or expects. It can still move, and the sponsor is expected to change it to actual once it has passed.
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Jan 14, 2025, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT06772545
Lead sponsor
Xiaguang Duan
Responsible party
Xiaguang Duan (Deputy Chief of Anesthesiology, Inner Mongolia Baogang Hospital) — Sponsor-investigator
First posted
Jan 13, 2025
Start date
Feb 1, 2025 (estimated)
Primary completion
May 1, 2025 (estimated)
Completion
May 10, 2025 (estimated)
Last update
Jan 14, 2025

Study contacts

Xiaguang Duan, Master's degree
Contact
alonlord2023@gmail.com
+86 13314720012
Xiangyu Wang, MM
principal investigator · Inner Mongolia Baogang Hospital

Oversight

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

Not currently enrolling

This study is not yet recruiting, as verified in Jan 2025. 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