ClinicalTrials.gg
RecruitingNCT07607509Updated Nov 5, 2026

Lumbar Paravertebral Block vs Erector Spinae Plane Block in Elderly Patients Undergoing Lumbar Spine Surgery

An interventional study of Ropivacaine 0.2% Injectable Solution and Ropivacaine 0.2% Injectable Solution in Spine Disease, sponsored by Poznan University of Medical Sciences. Recruiting at 1 site in Poland. Open to participants aged 65 Years to 100 Years. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2026-11-05.

Sponsored by Poznan University of Medical Sciences · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment

From the registry’s dates

  • Started May 2026; still recruiting 5 months later.
Updated Nov 5, 2026Now RecruitingSite recruiting status changed+1 moreGo to Updates ↓
Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
120
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
65 Years to 100 Years
Sex
All
01

Study summary

This prospective, randomized controlled trial aims to compare the analgesic efficacy of lumbar paravertebral block (L-PVB) and lumbar erector spinae plane block (L-ESPB) in elderly patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery. Effective postoperative pain management in this population is essential due to increased susceptibility to opioid-related adverse effects.

Participants aged 65 years and older will be randomly assigned to receive either bilateral L-PVB or bilateral L-ESPB in addition to standardized general anesthesia. The primary objective is to evaluate differences in postoperative opioid consumption within the first 48 hours after surgery. Secondary outcomes include pain intensity, intraoperative opioid use, time to mobilization, length of hospital stay, and incidence of opioid-related adverse events.

Read the detailed description

Lumbar spine surgery is associated with significant postoperative pain, particularly in elderly patients, who are at increased risk of opioid-related adverse effects such as respiratory depression, sedation, delirium, and delayed mobilization. Regional anesthesia techniques may improve postoperative analgesia and reduce opioid requirements in this population.

The lumbar paravertebral block (L-PVB) is a well-established technique providing segmental analgesia by targeting spinal nerves in the paravertebral space. The erector spinae plane block (L-ESPB), a newer interfascial plane block, has gained popularity due to its technical simplicity and favorable safety profile. However, comparative data on their effectiveness in lumbar spine surgery, especially in elderly patients, remain limited.

This study is designed as a prospective, randomized, controlled trial comparing L-PVB and L-ESPB in patients aged 65 years and older undergoing elective lumbar spine surgery under general anesthesia. Participants will be randomly allocated in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive either bilateral L-PVB or bilateral L-ESPB with a standardized dose of local anesthetic or general anesthesia only.

All patients will receive a standardized general anesthesia protocol and multimodal analgesia regimen. Postoperative pain management will follow a uniform protocol across both groups.

The primary endpoint is total opioid consumption within 48 hours after surgery, expressed as intravenous morphine equivalents. Secondary endpoints include intraoperative opioid consumption, postoperative pain scores at predefined time points, time to first mobilization, length of hospital stay, use of rescue analgesia, and incidence of opioid-related adverse effects. Exploratory analyses will include assessment of inflammatory markers.

02

Conditions studied

  • Spine Disease

Browse trials for

03

In context

Spinal Diseases

174 studies on the registry are indexed under Spinal Diseases; 39 are open to participants now.

This study's planned enrollment of 120 is above the median of 60 across 106 interventional studies indexed under Spinal Diseases.

Browse Spinal Diseases studies →

Lead sponsor

Poznan University of Medical Sciences is the lead sponsor of 151 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
65 Years to 100 Years
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

  • ge ≥65 years
  • Scheduled for elective lumbar spine surgery
  • (ASA) physical status I-III
  • Ability to assess pain using the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS)
  • Provision of written

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Refusal to participate
  • Chronic opioid therapy
  • Coagulation disorders
  • Use of anticoagulant therapy contraindicating regional anesthesia
  • Infection at the planned needle insertion site
  • Allergy to ropivacaine or other study-related medications
  • Severe hepatic failure
  • Severe renal failure
  • Cognitive impairment preventing reliable pain assessment
  • Inability to cooperate with study procedures
  • Extensive reoperation or surgery of unusually large extent that may interfere with outcome assessment
  • to general anesthesia or regional anesthesia
Terms in these criteria, in plain language(3)

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.

Contraindication

A reason a treatment, test or procedure should not be given to a particular person, such as an allergy, another illness or a medicine they take.

05

Study design

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

Study arms

  • No intervention
    General Anesthesia Alone (GA-only)

    Participants will receive standardized general anesthesia and multimodal postoperative analgesia according to institutional protocol. No regional anesthesia technique will be performed.

  • Active comparator
    General Anesthesia + Lumbar Erector Spinae Plane Block (L-ESPB)

    Participants will receive standardized general anesthesia combined with bilateral lumbar erector spinae plane block (L-ESPB) performed under ultrasound guidance. Ropivacaine 0.2% will be administered at a volume of 7.5 mL per side (total 15 mL). All patients will receive standardized multimodal postoperative analgesia.

    Drug: Ropivacaine 0.2% Injectable Solution

  • Active comparator
    General Anesthesia + Lumbar Paravertebral Block (L-PVB)

    Participants will receive standardized general anesthesia combined with bilateral lumbar paravertebral block (L-PVB) performed under ultrasound guidance. Ropivacaine 0.2% will be administered at a volume of 7.5 mL per side (total 15 mL). All patients will receive standardized multimodal postoperative analgesia.

    Drug: Ropivacaine 0.2% Injectable Solution

Interventions

  • Ultrasound-guided bilateral interfascial plane block performed at the lumbar level for postoperative analgesia in patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery.

    Also known as: Lumbar Erector Spinae Plane Block (L-ESPB)

  • Ultrasound-guided bilateral paravertebral block at the lumbar level targeting spinal nerves for postoperative analgesia in patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery.

    Also known as: Lumbar Paravertebral Block (L-PVB)

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Total opioid consumption within 48 hours after surgery

    Total cumulative opioid consumption within the first 48 hours after surgery, converted to intravenous morphine equivalents.

    Time frame: 48 hours postoperatively

Secondary outcomes

  1. Time to first rescue analgesia

    Time from completion of the surgery to the administration of the first dose of rescue opioid analgesic (in minutes).

    Time frame: 48 hours after surgery

  2. Postoperative pain intensity at rest (NRS)

    Pain intensity at rest assessed using an 11-point Numeric Rating Scale (NRS, 0 = no pain, 10 = worst imaginable pain)

    Time frame: 0 hours postoperatively

  3. Postoperative pain intensity at rest (NRS)

    Pain intensity at rest assessed using an 11-point Numeric Rating Scale (NRS, 0 = no pain, 10 = worst imaginable pain)

    Time frame: 2 hours postoperatively

  4. Postoperative pain intensity at rest (NRS)

    Pain intensity at rest assessed using an 11-point Numeric Rating Scale (NRS, 0 = no pain, 10 = worst imaginable pain)

    Time frame: 6 hours postoperatively

  5. Postoperative pain intensity at rest (NRS)

    Pain intensity at rest assessed using an 11-point Numeric Rating Scale (NRS, 0 = no pain, 10 = worst imaginable pain)

    Time frame: 12 hours postoperatively

  6. Postoperative pain intensity at rest (NRS)

    Pain intensity at rest assessed using an 11-point Numeric Rating Scale (NRS, 0 = no pain, 10 = worst imaginable pain)

    Time frame: 24 hours postoperatively

  7. Postoperative pain intensity at rest (NRS)

    Pain intensity at rest assessed using an 11-point Numeric Rating Scale (NRS, 0 = no pain, 10 = worst imaginable pain)

    Time frame: 48 hours postoperatively

  8. Postoperative pain intensity at during movement (NRS)

    Pain intensity at during movementassessed using an 11-point Numeric Rating Scale (NRS, 0 = no pain, 10 = worst imaginable pain)

    Time frame: 0 hours postoperatively

  9. Postoperative pain intensity at during movement (NRS)

    Pain intensity at during movementassessed using an 11-point Numeric Rating Scale (NRS, 0 = no pain, 10 = worst imaginable pain)

    Time frame: 2 hours postoperatively

  10. Postoperative pain intensity at during movement (NRS)

    Pain intensity at during movementassessed using an 11-point Numeric Rating Scale (NRS, 0 = no pain, 10 = worst imaginable pain)

    Time frame: 6 hours postoperatively

  11. Postoperative pain intensity at during movement (NRS)

    Pain intensity at during movementassessed using an 11-point Numeric Rating Scale (NRS, 0 = no pain, 10 = worst imaginable pain)

    Time frame: 12 hours postoperatively

  12. Postoperative pain intensity at during movement (NRS)

    Pain intensity at during movementassessed using an 11-point Numeric Rating Scale (NRS, 0 = no pain, 10 = worst imaginable pain)

    Time frame: 24 hours postoperatively

  13. Postoperative pain intensity at during movement (NRS)

    Pain intensity at during movementassessed using an 11-point Numeric Rating Scale (NRS, 0 = no pain, 10 = worst imaginable pain)

    Time frame: 48 hours postoperatively

  14. Interleukin-6 (IL-6) level

    serum interleukin-6 (IL-6) level

    Time frame: 12 hours after surgery

  15. Interleukin-6 (IL-6) level

    serum interleukin-6 (IL-6) level

    Time frame: 24 hours after surgery

  16. Interleukin-6 (IL-6) level

    serum interleukin-6 (IL-6) level

    Time frame: 48 hours after surgery

  17. NLR

    neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR)

    Time frame: 12 hours after surgery

  18. NLR

    neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR)

    Time frame: 24 hours after surgery

  19. NLR

    neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR)

    Time frame: 48 hours after surgery

  20. PLR

    platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR)

    Time frame: 12 hours after surgery

  21. PLR

    platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR)

    Time frame: 24 hours after surgery

  22. PLR

    platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR)

    Time frame: 48 hours after surgery

07

Study locations

1 of 1 sites recruiting
08

References and documents

Individual participant data

Plan to share: Yes — Individual participant data (IPD) underlying the results reported in this study, after de-identification, will be made available to researchers upon reasonable request. The shared data will include demographic data, intervention allocation, and outcome measures.

Supporting information: Study protocol, Statistical analysis plan

Time frame: Data will be available beginning 6 months after publication of the primary results and will remain available for up to 5 years.

Access criteria: Access to the data will be provided to researchers who submit a methodologically sound proposal. Requests will be reviewed by the principal investigator. Data will be shared after approval of a data access agreement.

No publications or documents are linked to this record.

09

Timeline

1 registry update since Sep 25, 2026
ElapsedEstimatedEstimated, not yet reachedDate before it movedWhere the date was before it movedSimilar studies: half by the dot; the band is the middle halfHalf of similar studies reached it by the dot; the band is the middle half, from a quarter to three quarters

Started May 2026 (actual). Primary completion is estimated for Jul 2027, 14 months after the start.

Of 40 non-industry interventional studies with no phase under Spinal Diseases, half reached primary completion within 26 months of starting (the median), counting those still running; a quarter within 16 and three quarters within 50. This study's planned 14 months is below that.

Counting every sponsor, half of 43 studies reached it within 26 months; a quarter within 16 and three quarters within 60.

Start moved once since we started tracking on Sep 25, 2026: Jun 2026 → May 2026, on Nov 5, 2026.

Earlier changes are on the record history on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

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

Registered
May 6, 2026
First posted
May 26, 2026
StartActual
May 25, 2026was Jun 2026
Primary completionEst.
Jul 31, 2027
CompletionEst.
Aug 31, 2027
Last update
Nov 5, 2026
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.
Status
Not yet recruiting→Recruiting
changed Nov 5, 2026
Sites
Poznan University of Medical Sciences is now Recruiting
Nov 5, 2026
Start date
Jun 1, 2026→May 25, 2026 (actual)
Nov 5, 2026
Site contacts
Changed at 1 site. See the sites
Show the site
  • Poznan University of Medical Sciences · Poznan, PolandContact added m•••@ump.edu.pl · •••8303
Nov 5, 2026
Show all 1 update
  1. Nov 5, 2026
    Not yet recruiting→Recruiting
    Poznan University of Medical Sciences is now Recruiting
    Start date Jun 1, 2026→May 25, 2026 (now actual)
    Site contacts Changed at 1 site. See the sites
    Show the site
    • Poznan University of Medical Sciences · Poznan, PolandContact added m•••@ump.edu.pl · •••8303
    + 3 other changes: verification date, description and arm descriptions

From the registry record's own update history. This site started tracking changes on Sep 25, 2026; for anything earlier, see the record history on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT07607509
Responsible party
Sponsor
First posted
May 26, 2026
Start date
May 25, 2026
Primary completion
Jul 31, 2027 (estimated)
Completion
Aug 31, 2027 (estimated)
Last update
Nov 5, 2026

Study contacts

Tomasz Reysner, MD PhD
Contact
treysner@ump.edu.pl
+48 (61) 831-01-22
Grzegorz Kowalski, MD PhD
Contact
gkowalski@ump.edu.pl
Katarzyna Wieczorowska-Tobis, MD PhD
study chair · Poznan University of Medical Sciences
Małgorzata Reysner, Md PhD
study director · Poznan University of Medical Sciences

Oversight

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

Interested in this study?

Eligibility is decided by the study team. Share this record with your doctor or contact the team directly.

Contact study team

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.

Studies of the drug tested here: Ropivacaine

Start the discussion