ClinicalTrials.gg
Active, not recruitingNCT07782073TPVB vs ESPUpdated Aug 24, 2026

Comparison Between Paravertebral and Erector Spinal Block Efficacy in Robotic Thoracic Surgeries

An interventional study of Paravertebral Nerve Block and ESP block group in Post Operative Analgesia, Regional Anaesthesia and Pain After Surgery, sponsored by Soroka University Medical Center. Active, not recruiting at 1 site in Israel. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2026-08-24.

Sponsored by Soroka University Medical Center · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment

Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
60
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
18 Years and older
Sex
All
01

Study summary

The overall goal of this work is to find the preferred continues catheter- based thoracic block for patients who undergoing major ROBOTIC assisted thoracic surgery (Lobectomy, multiple segmental resection and thoracotomy). Specifically, this project aims to complete the following:

  1. To compare analgesic efficiency of continuous TPVB vs ESP block in patients undergoing major robotic thoracoscopic operation
  2. To assess failure rate, time to catheter placement and patient satisfaction of each block group
  3. To compare complication rate of each block
Read the detailed description

All adult patients undergoing major robotic thoracic procedures, such as Lobectomy, multiple segmental resection and thoracotomy. The recruitment period is planned for approximately 1 year. The follow-up period will be from admission until hospital discharge.

Video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS) is a type of minimally invasive thoracic surgery that can remove parts of the diseased lung and lymph nodes. In video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS), a small tube called a thoracoscope is inserted through a small cut (incision) between the ribs. At the end of the tube is a small camera. This lets the surgeon see the entire chest cavity without having to open up the chest or spread the ribs. The surgeon then removes lung tissue with specially designed instruments inserted through one or two additional small incisions. The VATS technique can be used for other types of chest procedures involving the lungs, esophagus, thymus, pleural or pericardium besides lung cancer surgery.

Thoracic paravertebral block (TPVB) is the technique of injecting local anesthetic adjacent to the thoracic vertebra close to where the spinal nerves emerge from the intervertebral foramina. This results in ipsilateral somatic and sympathetic nerve blockade in multiple contiguous thoracic dermatomes above and below the site of injection

In recent years a new conceptual type of regional anesthesia has emerged: the Erector Spinae Plane Block (ESP block). Originally it was described in 2016 in a case report regarding analgesia intervention for thoracic neuropathic pain. Since then, there has been growing interest and research adding experience about the ESP block for pain control after thoracic and abdominal surgery and also traumatic injury of chest and abdomen. Current literature is limited to approximately 60 publications, the majority of which is case reports and case series.

Comparison of both techniques:

In thoracic surgery, both the Erector Spinae Plane (ESP) block and the Thoracic Paravertebral Block (TPVB) are utilized for analgesia.

Erector Spinae Plane (ESP) Block:

Advantages:

  • Technical Simplicity: The ESP block is generally easier to perform due to its superficial anatomical location, making it more accessible, especially for practitioners less experienced with deeper blocks.
  • Safety Profile: There's a reduced risk of complications such as pneumothorax because the injection site is farther from the pleura and major vascular structures.
  • Analgesic Efficacy: Studies suggest that ESP blocks provide effective analgesia for thoracic surgeries, with benefits comparable to TPVB when a similar number of injections are administered.

Disadvantages:

  • Potentially Limited Analgesic Coverage: While effective, the ESP block may not provide as extensive analgesic coverage as TPVB in some cases, potentially necessitating additional analgesic measures.
  • Limited Long-Term Data: As a relatively newer technique, long-term efficacy and safety data are less comprehensive compared to TPVB.

Thoracic Paravertebral Block (TPVB):

Advantages:

  • Established Efficacy: TPVB has a long-standing history of providing reliable analgesia for thoracic surgeries, with well-documented outcomes.
  • Comprehensive Analgesia: It offers effective unilateral analgesia, which can be advantageous for procedures involving one side of the thorax.

Disadvantages:

  • Technical Complexity: TPVB requires a higher degree of technical skill due to the proximity to the pleura and neurovascular structures, increasing the risk of complications.
  • Risk of Complications: There's a higher potential for adverse events such as pneumothorax, vascular puncture, and hypotension.

In summary, both ESP and TPVB are effective for analgesia in thoracic surgery. The choice between them should be guided by patient-specific factors, surgical requirements, and the clinician's expertise with each technique.

02

Conditions studied

  • Post Operative Analgesia
  • Regional Anaesthesia
  • Pain After Surgery
  • Opioid Consumption

Browse trials for

Keywords

  • Paravertebral block
  • Erector spinal block
  • continues block catheter based
  • Robotic surgery
  • Thoracoscopic surgery
  • Regional anesthesia
03

In context

Pain

10,054 studies on the registry are indexed under Pain; 1,649 are open to participants now.

This study's planned enrollment of 60 is close to the median of 66 across 8,493 interventional studies indexed under Pain.

Browse Pain studies →

Lead sponsor

Soroka University Medical Center is the lead sponsor of 160 studies on the registry; 2 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

  • Age ≥18 years
  • All patients undergo major robotic thoracic surgery

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Patients who refuse to participate in the study.
  • Patients who are unable to give an .
  • Patients with local inflammation at the puncture site
  • Patients with known allergy to local anesthetisc
  • Pregnancy
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.

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
Single (Investigator)
Enrollment
60 participants (estimated)

Study arms

  • Active comparator
    group A - TPVB

    continues paravertebral block

    Procedure: Paravertebral Nerve Block

  • Active comparator
    group B - ESP

    continues erector spinal block

    Procedure: ESP block group

Interventions

  • ProcedureParavertebral Nerve Block

    Thoracic paravertebral block (TPVB) is the technique of injecting local anesthetic adjacent to the thoracic vertebra close to where the spinal nerves emerge from the intervertebral foramina. This results in ipsilateral somatic and sympathetic nerve blockade in multiple contiguous thoracic dermatomes above and below the site of injection It is effective in treating acute and chronic pain of unilateral origin from the chest and abdomen. Bilateral use of TPVB has also been described. Our understanding of the safety and efficacy of TPVB has improved significantly in the last two decades, prompting its use in children and neonates and for surgical anesthesia The TPVB is used to provide anesthesia and analgesia for breast surgery, surgery that requires coverage of the axilla (eg, creation of dialysis access, axillary lymph node dissection), or for thoraco-abdominal surgery as an alternative to thoracic epidural. The selected level for the block should be as close to the loca

  • ProcedureESP block group

    we started performing ESP block for postoperative pain control in thoracic and abdominal surgery, with very satisfactory results so far. The block appears to be sufficient for postoperative pain control and the complications are yet to be seen. The results of our previous study show that ESP block is superior to pectoralis and serratus blocks-also used in thoracic surgery-in regard for a larger area of analgesia, easier injection, and longer duration. Also, it offers better safety profile than neuraxial analgesia or the thoracic paravertebral block The current literature suggests that ESP block is an excellent adjuvant to multi-modal analgesia not just for thoracic, but for abdominal surgery as well. It is an ultrasound guided interfacial block, achieved by injecting the local anesthetic solution between the transverse process and the erector spinae muscles (iliocostalis, longissimus, and spinalis). It can be performed either as a single shot or as a continuous catheter techniqu

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Post operative opioid consumption

    measured by MME (morphine equivalent)

    Time frame: From completion of surgery through hospital discharge, assessed up to 24 hours postoperatively

  2. post operative pain

    measured by Visual Analog Scale (VAS); measured from 0 to 5, when 5- is maximal pain and 0 - no pain at all.

    Time frame: Every 2 hours starting from PACU admission until hospital discharge, assessed up to 96 hours postoperatively.

Secondary outcomes

  1. Patient satisfaction

    measured by score of 1 to 5, when 1 is the lowest (very not satisfied) and 5 is the highest (Very satisfied).

    Time frame: immediately before discharge from the hospital

07

Study locations

1 site
08

References and documents

Publications

  • 1. H,Nagano, T. Suda, Advantages and disadvantages of robotic and uniportal video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery, Video-assist Thorac Surg 2021;6:14 | http://dx.doi.org/ 2. Veronesi G. Robotic lobectomy and segmentectomy for lung cancer: results and operating technique. J Thorac Dis 2015;7 3. Novellis P, Bottoni E, Vonlaz E, et al. Robotic surgery, video-assisted thoracic surgery, and open surgery for early stage lung cancer: comparison of costs and outcomes at a single institute. J Thorac Dis 2018;1 4. Louie BE, Farivar AS, Aye RW, et al. Early experience with robotic lung resection results in similar operative outcomes and mobidity with compared with matched video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery cases. Ann Thorac Surg 2012;93:1598-6 5. Karmakar M., Thoracic Paravertebral Block, Anesthesiology 2001; 95:771-80 6. S. Feray,J. Lubach,G. P. Joshi,F. Bonnet, M. Van de Velde, PROSPECT guidelines for video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery: a systematic review and procedure-specific postoperative pain management recommendations, Anaesthesia 2022, 77, 311-325 7. Krishna, S.N.; Chauhan, S.; Bhoi, D.; Kaushal, B.; Hasija, S.; Sangdup, T.; Bisoi, A.K. Bilateral Erector Spinae Plane Block for Acute Post-Surgical Pain in Adult Cardiac Surgical Patients: A Randomized Controlled Trial. J. Cardiothorac. Vasc. Anesth. 2019, 33, 368-375. 8. Kawagoe, I.; Hayashida, M.; Satoh, D.; Kochiyama, T.; Fukuda, M.; Kishii, J. Postoperative analgesia in patients undergoing robot-assisted thoracic surgery: A comparison between thoracic epidural analgesia and intercostal nerve block combined with intravenous patient-controlled analgesia. Ann. Palliat. Med. 2021, 10, 1985-1993 9. A. Pawa,, T. Wojcikiewicz,, A. Barron, ,K. El-Boghdadly,, Paravertebral Blocks: Anatomical, Practical, and Future Concepts, Current Anesthesiology Reports (2019) 9:263-270 10. A. Ardon, J. Lee, C. D. Franco, K. T. Riutort, R. A. Greengrass, Paravertebral block: anatomy and relevant safety issues, Korean J Anesthe

Study documents

PDFs hosted by the registry, ClinicalTrials.gov.

Individual participant data

Plan to share: Yes — all IPD that underlie results in a publication will be shared in future publication

09

Timeline

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
ElapsedEstimatedEstimated, not yet reachedSimilar 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 Jul 2026 (actual). Primary completion is estimated for Jul 2027, 12 months after the start.

Of 3,731 non-industry interventional studies with no phase under Pain, half reached primary completion within 10 months of starting (the median), counting those still running; a quarter within 4 and three quarters within 23. This study's planned 12 months is above that.

Counting every sponsor, half of 3,830 studies reached it within 10 months; a quarter within 4 and three quarters within 23.

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

Registered
Jul 28, 2026
First posted
Aug 24, 2026
StartActual
Jul 1, 2026
Primary completionEst.
Jul 1, 2027
CompletionEst.
Jul 1, 2028
Last update
Aug 24, 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.
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Aug 24, 2026, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT07782073
Responsible party
Alexander Smirnov MD (Attending Physician, Anesthesia and acute pain service; Principal Investigator., Soroka University Medical Center) — Principal investigator
First posted
Aug 24, 2026
Start date
Jul 1, 2026
Primary completion
Jul 1, 2027 (estimated)
Completion
Jul 1, 2028 (estimated)
Last update
Aug 24, 2026

Oversight

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

Not currently enrolling

This study is active, not recruiting, as verified in Aug 2026. 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