ClinicalTrials.gg
RecruitingNCT07756047Updated Oct 23, 2026

Erector Spinae Plane vs Serratus Anterior Plane Catheter Infusions for Acute Pain Management in Patients With Traumatic Rib Fractures

An interventional study of Erector spinae plane catheter and Serratus plane catheter in Traumatic Rib Fracture(s) and Traumatic Rib Fracture, sponsored by Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre. Recruiting at 1 site in Canada. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2026-10-23.

Primary conditionRib FracturesRegistry: Wounds and InjuriesReclassifiedWhy we changed it
Registry
Wounds and Injuries — the first condition term the registry derived for this study.
ClinicalTrials.gg
Rib Fractures
Why
  1. The study's listed conditions name Rib Fractures, a narrower term within Wounds and Injuries.
Confidence
High: the new condition is named in the study's own listed conditions. Of 351 hand-checked studies reclassified this way, 68% were exactly right and 84% in the right disease family; the registry's first term was right for 5% (measured 2026-10-21). How we classify →
Wrong?
Tell us the study's main condition →

Sponsored by Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment

From the registry’s dates

  • Started Sep 2026; still recruiting 2 months later.
Updated Oct 23, 2026Now RecruitingSite recruiting status changed+1 moreGo to Updates ↓
Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
66
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
18 Years and older
Sex
All
01

Study summary

Rib fractures happen in about 10-20% of patients with blunt trauma and can be serious, with higher death rates in older adults. These injuries often lead to lung problems like pneumonia, collapsed lung areas (atelectasis), fluid buildup, or even respiratory failure. A major reason for this is pain-patients avoid deep breathing and coughing, which worsens lung function. Good pain control helps prevent these complications.

Opioids are commonly used for pain but can cause problems such as slowed breathing, delirium, nausea, and longer time on a ventilator. Because of this, regional anesthesia (nerve blocks) is increasingly used to control pain while reducing opioid use. Common options include epidurals, paravertebral blocks, and newer techniques like erector spinae plane (ESP) and serratus anterior plane (SAP) blocks. Continuous catheter techniques are especially useful in trauma patients because they can provide ongoing pain relief and have fewer contraindications than epidurals.

The SAP block is done at the side of the chest and works well for rib fractures in the front and side. It may not work as well for fractures in the back, although trauma may sometimes allow the anesthetic to spread further than expected.

The ESP block is done near the spine and may cover a broader area, including both front and back of the chest. It is relatively easy to perform at the bedside and is considered safe. Studies suggest it provides pain relief similar to epidurals in some patients.

There is still limited evidence directly comparing continuous SAP and ESP catheters. Only one study (using single injections) suggests ESP may provide better pain relief. It is unclear whether that difference holds true with continuous infusions, or whether SAP might be preferable because it is easier and quicker to perform.

We propose a randomized trial comparing continuous ESP and SAP catheters in patients with rib fractures to determine which provides better pain control, reduces opioid use, improves breathing outcomes, and is easier to perform in routine practice.

Our hypotheses are that ESP will provide better pain relief, SAP will be easier and safer to place, and both techniques will reduce opioid use while maintaining good patient comfort and breathing.

Read the detailed description

Traumatic rib fractures occur in 10%-20% of blunt trauma patients and are associated with significant mortality (22% and 10%, in the elderly and young patients, respectively). Patients with rib fractures are predisposed to multiple pulmonary complications including pneumonia, aspiration, pleural effusion, pulmonary embolism, atelectasis and acute respiratory distress syndrome. Effective analgesia, albeit challenging, has been found to reduce the incidence of those complications. It is postulated that pulmonary complications occur post rib fractures due to impaired pulmonary mechanics, inappropriate clearance of secretions, and atelectasis; hence the need for adequate and affective pain control.

Opioids are commonly used for analgesia in critically ill patients but they carry notable adverse effects including: respiratory depression, hemodynamic instability, tolerance, hyperalgesia, delirium and gastrointestinal side effects. They are also associated with prolonged mechanical ventilation, counteracting goals for rib fracture management. Therefore, alternative analgesic option such as regional anesthesia techniques have gained more popularity. Regional anesthetic blocks can improve analgesia and reduce opioid requirements. Options for rib fractures include thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA), paravertebral block, intercostal block, erector spinae plane block (ESP), and serratus anterior plane block (SAP).

Continuous peripheral nerve blockage has gained more popularity in trauma settings; especially continuous fascial plane catheters which can offer effective analgesia without many contraindications associated with thoracic epidurals. Frequent contraindications to thoracic epidural blocks in trauma populations have driven interest in alternative analgesic modalities such as continuous fascial plane infusions, despite the lower pneumonia rates that are associated with thoracic epidural analgesia.

Serratus Anterior Plane Block (SAP Block): The SAP block is an ultrasound guided block that involves the injection of local anesthetic superficial to the serratus anterior muscle in the mid axillary line. It provides effective analgesia for patients with anterolateral rib fractures but might be ineffective for posterior rib fractures. It consistently involves the lateral cutaneous branches of intercostal nerves, which innervate the superficial anterolateral chest wall. It might spare the intercostal nerves supplying the posterior ribs and intercostal muscles. However, a cadaveric study showed that disruption of tissue planes in trauma may promote deeper spread of local anesthetic reaching the intercostal nerves and reaching the posterior rib space.

Erector Spinae Plane Block (ESP Block): The ESP block is an ultrasound guided block which involves injection of local anesthetic into the erector spinae fascial plane. It is thought to work by blocking the lateral cutaneous and intercostal nerves with potential diffusion into the paravertebral space. It is technically easy and can be performed at bedside. Risks are low, particularly when performed under ultrasound guidance, and include hypotension, vascular puncture, contralateral spread via the epidural space, and pneumothorax. A continuous nerve catheter is typically used for rib fractures with the goal of inserting the needle midpoint of the rib levels. A randomized trial has showed that continuous ESP block is as effective is thoracic epidural analgesia for pain control in patients with unilateral rib fractures.

Addressing evidence gaps: A recent scoping review published by our research group indicated that SAP and ESP are the most common regional anesthesia techniques for acute traumatic rib fractures. There has been one head-to-head study comparing SAP to ESP that demonstrated superior analgesia in favour of ESP for traumatic rib fractures however it was designed as a single injection study. Given that the SAP catheter is potentially easier to perform (i.e., no need to place patient in lateral decubitus position and shallower sonographic target), is ESP superior to SAP catheter infusion to warrant the additional time and effort? To our best knowledge, no prospective comparative studies on SAP and ESP catheters have directly evaluated analgesic efficacy, opioid consumption, respiratory outcomes, and ease of performance between these two catheter techniques in a systematic manner. Understanding which technique provides superior analgesia while remaining technically straightforward for widespread implementation is critical for standardizing regional anesthesia practice in rib fracture management. We propose a pragmatic, randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing ESP and SAP to identify the best regional anesthesia catheter technique regardless of the pattern of rib fracture (anterior vs. posterior) and to allow adoption of a single technique to facilitate streamlined care. This knowledge gap represents an important opportunity to advance our understanding of the two established techniques in this trauma population.

02

Conditions studied

  • Traumatic Rib Fracture(s)
  • Traumatic Rib Fracture

Browse trials for

Keywords

  • trauma
  • rib fracture
  • regional anesthesia
  • fascial plane catheter
  • acute pain
03

In context

Rib Fractures Reclassified

126 studies on the registry are indexed under Rib Fractures; 28 are open to participants now.

This study's planned enrollment of 66 is close to the median of 60 across 92 interventional studies indexed under Rib Fractures.

Browse Rib Fractures studies →

Lead sponsor

Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre is the lead sponsor of 584 studies on the registry; 135 are open to participants now.

Of its 6 completed or terminated interventional studies of FDA-regulated products, 2 (33%) have results posted.

Compared within Rib Fractures, this study's primary condition as ClinicalTrials.gg classifies it; the registry's first condition term is Wounds and Injuries. The counts are of registry records indexed under each term, refreshed daily. How we classify →

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

  • Age >18;
  • Traumatic rib fractures (unilateral or bilateral);
  • Minimum of 3 rib fractures per side;
  • Admitted to hospital for \<72 hours
  • NRS pain score > 4 at rest or with movement for chest pain at the time of eligibility assessment

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Severe traumatic brain injury (Glasgow Coma Scale \< 9);
  • Surgery performed/planned within 72 hours of catheter infusion start;
  • Uncontrolled coagulopathy;
  • Skin infection or anatomical abnormality (i.e. open fracture) at insertion sites;
  • Allergy to local anesthetic;
  • Chronic high dose opioid use preadmission (Morphine Equivalent Dose > 30mg per day);
  • Pregnancy;
  • Acute respiratory failure requiring intubation at enrolment;
  • Inability to comply with Intravenous Patient-Controlled Analgesia use;
  • to nerve blocks
  • High likelihood of loss to follow-up
Terms in these criteria, in plain language(1)

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.

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
Single (Outcomes assessor)
Enrollment
66 participants (estimated)

Study arms

  • Active comparator
    Erector spinae plane catheter

    Participants receive erector spinae plane catheter

    Procedure: Erector spinae plane catheter

  • Experimental
    Serratus plane catheter

    Participants receive serratus anterior plane catheter

    Procedure: Serratus plane catheter

Interventions

  • ProcedureErector spinae plane catheter

    Participants receive erector spinae plane catheter infusion

  • ProcedureSerratus plane catheter

    Participants receive serratus plane catheter infusion

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Pain with movement

    Pain Numerical Rating Scale scores with movement from baseline through 72 hours post-placement. Numerical Rating Scale minimum is 0, maximum is 10, higher score = worse pain.

    Time frame: 72 hours

Secondary outcomes

  1. Total opioid consumption

    Total opioid consumption (IV and oral) between the SAP and ESP groups at 24, 48, and 72 hours post-catheter placement

    Time frame: 72 hours

  2. Respiratory function

    forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1), FEV1% of predicted, forced vital capacity (FVC), and peak inspiratory and expiratory flow will be measured using portable spirometry at baseline, 24 (± 4 hours), 48 (± 6 hours), and 72 (± 6 hours) hours post-catheter placement

    Time frame: 72 hours

  3. Ease of catheter insertion between techniques

    Number of skin puncture attempts

    Time frame: At time of catheter insertion

  4. Pain at rest

    Pain Numerical Rating Scale scores at rest from baseline through 72 hours post-placement. Numerical Rating Scale minimum is 0, maximum is 10, higher score = worse pain.

    Time frame: 72 hours

  5. Procedure related complications

    Procedural complications (vascular puncture, local anesthetic toxicity signs, pneumothorax, infection at insertion site).

    Time frame: 72 hours

  6. Duration of catheter insertion procedure

    Time from patient positioning to final catheter insertion and confirmation (in minutes)

    Time frame: At the time of catheter insertion

Other outcomes

  1. Patient satisfaction

    Patient satisfaction scores using Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC)

    Time frame: 72 hours

  2. Catheter-related complications

    Catheter-related complications including infection, dislodgement, local anesthetic toxicity, and pneumothorax within the 72 hour study period

    Time frame: 72 hours

  3. Catheter function

    Duration of catheter function (days of infusion)

    Time frame: Through hospital admission, an average of 7 days

  4. Hospital length of stay

    Total hospital length of stay (measured in days)

    Time frame: Duration of hospital admission, an average of 7 days

  5. Intensive care stay

    Duration of intensive care stay

    Time frame: Through hospital admission, an average of 7 days

  6. Pulmonary complications

    Documented pneumonia, ARDS, need for mechanical ventilation

    Time frame: Through hospital admission, an average of 7 days

07

Study locations

1 of 1 sites recruiting
08

References and documents

Individual participant data

Plan to share: No

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 Sep 2026 (actual). Primary completion is estimated for Dec 2027, 15 months after the start.

Of 40 non-industry interventional studies with no phase under Rib Fractures, half reached primary completion within 23 months of starting (the median), counting those still running; a quarter within 15 and three quarters within 37. This study's planned 15 months is below that.

Counting every sponsor, half of 40 studies reached it within 23 months; a quarter within 15 and three quarters within 37.

Start moved once since we started tracking on Sep 25, 2026: Aug 2026 → Sep 2026, on Oct 23, 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
Jul 3, 2026
First posted
Aug 10, 2026
StartActual
Sep 9, 2026was Aug 2026
Primary completionEst.
Dec 31, 2027
CompletionEst.
Jun 30, 2028
Last update
Oct 23, 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 Oct 23, 2026
Sites
Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre is now Recruiting
Oct 23, 2026
Start date
Aug 1, 2026→Sep 9, 2026 (actual)
Oct 23, 2026
Show all 1 update
  1. Oct 23, 2026
    Not yet recruiting→Recruiting
    Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre is now Recruiting
    Start date Aug 1, 2026→Sep 9, 2026 (now actual)
    + 1 other change: verification date

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
NCT07756047
Responsible party
Sponsor
First posted
Aug 10, 2026
Start date
Sep 9, 2026
Primary completion
Dec 31, 2027 (estimated)
Completion
Jun 30, 2028 (estimated)
Last update
Oct 23, 2026

Study contacts

Howard Meng, MD
Contact
howard.meng@sunnybrook.ca
416-480-4864
Lilia Kaustov, PhD
Contact
lilia.kaustov@sunnybrook.ca
416-480-4864

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.

Start the discussion