ClinicalTrials.gg
Not yet recruitingNCT07813338PINPOINTUpdated Sep 10, 2026

Pudendal Nerve Block Techniques for Pain Control After Hemorrhoidectomy

An interventional study of Transgluteal Pudendal Nerve Block and Transperineal pudendal nerve block in Hemorrhoids and Postoperative Pain, sponsored by Vinmec Healthcare System. Not yet recruiting. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2026-09-10.

Sponsored by Vinmec Healthcare System · Not applicable, Interventional, and Supportive care

Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
140
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
18 Years and older
Sex
All
01

Study summary

Hemorrhoidectomy is frequently associated with severe postoperative pain despite multimodal analgesia. Ultrasound-guided pudendal nerve block has become an effective regional analgesic technique, but it remains unknown whether blockade performed proximally at the ischial spine provides superior analgesia compared with the more distal transperineal approach.

The PINPOINT Trial is a prospective randomized assessor-blinded superiority trial comparing ultrasound-guided transgluteal (proximal) and transperineal (distal) pudendal nerve block in adults undergoing elective hemorrhoidectomy. The primary objective is to determine whether the proximal approach reduces cumulative opioid consumption during the first 48 postoperative hours. Secondary outcomes include pain intensity, opioid-related outcomes, recovery, complications, and patient-reported outcomes.

Read the detailed description

Context, rationale and hypothesis: Hemorrhoidectomy remains one of the most painful ambulatory surgical procedures, frequently associated with substantial postoperative opioid consumption despite multimodal analgesia. This persistent nociceptive burden has direct implications for delayed recovery, unplanned admissions, and opioid-related adverse events. Consequently, optimizing regional analgesic strategies is a priority within enhanced recovery pathways.

Pudendal nerve block (PNB), targeting sacral roots S2-S4, has emerged as an effective adjunct for postoperative analgesia in anorectal surgery. Randomized trials and meta-analyses consistently demonstrate reductions in pain scores and opioid requirements when PNB is incorporated into perioperative care. However, these studies encompass heterogeneous techniques, and critically, do not address whether the anatomical level of blockade influences clinical efficacy.

From a mechanistic perspective, the pudendal nerve divides into its terminal branches-the inferior rectal, perineal, and dorsal genital nerves-after traversing the region of the ischial spine and entering Alcock's canal. The inferior rectal nerve, which provides the principal sensory innervation to the anal canal and perianal region, typically branches proximally before the pudendal nerve courses distally within the pudendal canal. This anatomical arrangement suggests that distal approaches to PNB, such as the transperineal technique, may incompletely anesthetize the inferior rectal nerve due to injection beyond the point of branching or variable spread within the ischiorectal fossa.

In contrast, the posterior transgluteal approach targets the pudendal nerve at a more proximal location, near the ischial spine and sacrospinous ligament, where the nerve remains a single trunk. Ultrasound guidance at this level enables precise deposition of local anesthetic before division into terminal branches, theoretically ensuring a more consistent and comprehensive blockade, including the inferior rectal nerve. This distinction in injection level-proximal versus distal-represents a fundamental but underexplored determinant of block success.

Despite increasing adoption of ultrasound-guided regional anesthesia, there is a striking absence of randomized controlled trials directly comparing proximal (transgluteal) and distal (transperineal) approaches to PNB in the context of hemorrhoidectomy. Existing evidence is therefore insufficient to determine whether improved anatomical coverage translates into superior clinical analgesia or reduced opioid consumption.

Addressing this gap is clinically relevant for several reasons. First, inadequate blockade of the inferior rectal nerve may contribute to residual pain during defecation, a key determinant of patient dissatisfaction after hemorrhoidectomy. Second, identifying a more reliable and reproducible technique could standardize PNB within perioperative protocols. Third, demonstrating superiority of a proximal approach would support broader integration of ultrasound-guided regional techniques into opioid-sparing strategies.

The present trial is designed to test the hypothesis that a proximal, ultrasound-guided transgluteal PNB provides superior postoperative analgesia compared with a distal transperineal approach. By directly comparing these techniques in a randomized controlled setting, this study seeks to determine whether anatomical optimization of nerve blockade translates into meaningful clinical benefit.

Originality and innovative aspects: Hemorrhoidectomy remains associated with significant postoperative pain, often requiring substantial opioid consumption. Pudendal nerve block (PNB), targeting nerve roots from S2-S4, has demonstrated efficacy in reducing postoperative pain and opioid requirements. Anatomically, the pudendal nerve gives rise to the inferior rectal, perineal, and dorsal genital nerves. The effectiveness of PNB depends on the level of injection:

  • Transgluteal (proximal) approach: blockade at the level of the ischial spine before nerve branching
  • Transperineal (distal) approach: injection within or near Alcock's canal after branching The distal approach may spare the inferior rectal nerve, leading to suboptimal anorectal analgesia. In contrast, the proximal ultrasound-guided technique may provide a more complete and reliable block.

To date, no randomized controlled trial has directly compared proximal (transgluteal) and distal (transperineal) approaches to pudendal nerve block in hemorrhoidectomy, despite clear anatomical rationale suggesting differences in nerve coverage and analgesic efficacy.

Methods This study is a prospective, Randomized, Controlled, Parallel-group , Superiority trial, Assessor-blinded The protocol follows SPIRIT recommendations, and reporting will adhere to CONSORT guidelines Setting The study will be conducted at VinMec International Hospital, Can THo, Vietnam. Interventions Control Group (Standard Management): Trans perineal Group (Distal PNB) Spinal anesthesia protocol standardized; Ultrasound-guided transperineal approach ; Injection in rectoperineal/ischiorectal fossa; Bilateral; Ropivacaine 0. 5%, 8 mL per side; Oral Paracetamol 500 mg every 6 hours; Oral Celecoxib 200 mg every 12 hours ( if no contra-indication); Rescue opioids if NRS pain values >3/10 converted to MME Intervention Group: Transgluteal Group (Proximal PNB) General anesthesia protocol standardized; Ultrasound-guided posterior approach; Injection near ischial spine/sacrospinous ligament; Bilateral; Ropivacaine 0. 5%, 6 mL per side; Oral Paracetamol 500 mg every 6 hours; Oral Celecoxib 200 mg every 12 hours (if no contra-indication); Rescue opioids if NRS pain values >3/10 converted to MME

The Block Techniques:

Transperineal Approach Patient Positioning The patient is placed in the lithotomy position with slight hip abduction. Adequate exposure of the perineum is ensured under strict aseptic conditions.

Ultrasound Equipment and Probe Position A high-frequency linear transducer (10-18 MHz) is used. The probe is placed: Transversely or slightly oblique; On the perineum, lateral to the external anal sphincter; Over the ischio-rectal fossa.

Sonoanatomy Key structures to identify include: External anal sphincter (medial landmark); Ischioanal (ischiorectal) fossa (hypoechoic fat-filled space); Obturator internus muscle (lateral boundary); Internal pudendal artery (identified using color Doppler). The pudendal nerve is often not directly visualized, but lies medial to the internal pudendal artery and within or near Alcock's (pudendal) canal Needle Insertion Approach: in-plane, typically medial to lateral; Needle: 50mm echogenic needle advanced to the ischioanal fossa, adjacent to the internal pudendal artery.

Injection 8 mL of local anesthetic is injected per side. The spread should be observed within the ischioanal fossa Controlled by Color echo Doppler to prevent IV injection.

Transgluteal Approach Patient Positioning The patient is placed in the prone position (or lateral decubitus if needed). The gluteal region is exposed and prepared under sterile conditions.

Ultrasound Equipment and Probe Position A low-frequency curvilinear probe (2-5 MHz) or a high-frequency probe in lean patients may be used.

The probe is positioned transversely over the gluteal region, at the level of the ischial spine Sonoanatomy Key landmarks: Ischial spine (hyperechoic bony structure with acoustic shadow); Sacrospinous ligament; Sacrotuberous ligament; Internal pudendal artery (identified with Doppler). The pudendal nerve is located medial and posterior to the internal pudendal artery between the sacrospinous and sacrotuberous ligaments. It may appear as a small hyperechoic oval structure, although visualization is variable.

Needle Insertion Approach: in-plane, usually lateral-to-medial; Needle: 50 or 80 mm echogenic needle. The needle is advanced through the gluteal muscles, toward the ischial spine region, Into the interligamentous plane (between sacrospinous and sacrotuberous ligaments) Injection 6 mL of local anesthetic is injected per side. The spread of LA expands of the interligamentous space, circumferential spread around the pudendal artery controlled by Color echo doppler Sample Size: Assuming a mean 48h opioid consumption at 60 mg MME with a standard deviation: 30 mg and a clinically meaningful difference of 15 mg (25% reduction) with an Alpha risk : 0.05 (two-sided) and a β risk Power: 80%, the required sample is 64 patients per group. Accounting for 10% dropout the Total sample size: 140 patients (70 per group).

Analysis of the Population: Intention-to-treat (ITT) (primary analysis) and Per-protocol (sensitivity analysis) Descriptive Statistics: Continuous variables: mean ± SD or median (IQR) and Categorical variables: n (%)

Primary Outcome Analysis:

Comparison of cumulative MME at 48 h: If normally distributed → Student's t-test; If non-normal → Mann-Whitney U test Additionally: Linear regression adjusted for: Age, Sex, Surgical technique, Baseline pain Effect size: Mean difference with 95% confidence interval

Secondary Analyses :

Pain scores (repeated measures): Mixed-effects linear models ; Fixed effects: group, time, group × time interaction; Random intercept for patient

Time-to-event outcomes:

Time to first opioid: Kaplan-Meier analysis; Log-rank test; Cox proportional hazards model

Categorical outcomes:

Chi-square or Fisher's exact test; Report relative risks with 95% CI

Continuous outcomes:

t-test or Mann-Whitney depending on distribution Handling Missing Data : Multiple imputation if >5% missing; Sensitivity analyses Significance Threshold : p \< 0.05 (two-sided) Randomization Randomization and Blinding : Allocation ratio: 1:1; Computer-generated random sequence with variable block sizes; Allocation concealment via secure electronic system

Blinding:

The patients are blinded; Outcome assessors: blinded; Data analysts: blinded; Performing anesthesiologist: not blinded Data Collection Methods: Pain opiates consumption and functional outcomes will be assessed at predefined time points using scales and validated questionnaires: NRS pain score at rest and during movement, .Lickert scale for patient satisfaction, consumption of rescue analgesia opiates (MME), Brief Pain Inventory and QOR 15 form. Data will be collected during follow-up visits or via structured interviews.

02

Conditions studied

  • Hemorrhoids
  • Postoperative Pain

Keywords

  • Hemorrhoidectomy
  • Pudendal Nerve Block
  • Regional Anesthesia
  • Ultrasound-Guided Nerve Block
  • Postoperative Pain
  • Opioid Consumption
  • Enhanced Recovery
03

In context

Hemorrhoids

238 studies on the registry are indexed under Hemorrhoids; 73 are open to participants now.

This study's planned enrollment of 140 is above the median of 100 across 183 interventional studies indexed under Hemorrhoids.

Browse Hemorrhoids studies →

Lead sponsor

Vinmec Healthcare System is the lead sponsor of 17 studies on the registry; 4 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

  • Adults aged 18 years or older.
  • Scheduled for elective hemorrhoidectomy.
  • Hemorrhoidectomy performed using either the Milligan-Morgan or Ferguson technique.
  • ASA Physical Status I-III.
  • Able to understand the study procedures and provide written .
  • Able to complete postoperative pain and quality-of-recovery assessments.

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria

  • Chronic opioid use exceeding 30 mg morphine milligram equivalents per day.
  • Known allergy or to local anesthetics.
  • Coagulopathy or other contraindication to peripheral nerve block.
  • Infection at the planned injection site.
  • Pregnancy.
  • Cognitive impairment preventing reliable completion of study questionnaires or pain assessments.
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.

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
Supportive care
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
Double (Participant, Outcomes assessor)
Enrollment
140 participants (estimated)

Study arms

  • Experimental
    Transgluteal pudendal nerve block

    Ultrasound-guided bilateral transgluteal pudendal nerve block performed at the level of the ischial spine before pudendal nerve division.

    Procedure: Transgluteal Pudendal Nerve Block

  • Active comparator
    Transperineal Pudendal Nerve Block

    Ultrasound-guided bilateral transperineal pudendal nerve block performed within the ischiorectal fossa near Alcock's canal.

    Procedure: Transperineal pudendal nerve block

Interventions

  • ProcedureTransgluteal Pudendal Nerve Block

    Participants will receive bilateral ultrasound-guided posterior transgluteal pudendal nerve blocks under standardized general anesthesia. With the patient prone or in lateral decubitus, the gluteal region will be prepared aseptically. Ultrasound and color Doppler will identify the ischial spine, sacrospinous and sacrotuberous ligaments, and internal pudendal artery. An in-plane needle will be advanced into the interligamentous target plane, followed by injection of 5 mL ropivacaine 0.5% on each side. Local anesthetic spread will be assessed sonographically. Postoperative analgesia will include paracetamol and celecoxib when appropriate, with rescue opioids given for NRS pain \>3/10. Opioid consumption will be converted to morphine milligram equivalents (MME) for analysis.

  • ProcedureTransperineal pudendal nerve block

    Participants will receive bilateral ultrasound-guided transperineal pudendal nerve blocks following standardized general anesthesia. In lithotomy position, the perineum will be prepared aseptically. A high-frequency ultrasound probe will identify the relevant anatomical structures and the internal pudendal artery using Color Doppler. An echogenic needle will be advanced under ultrasound guidance into the ischioanal/ischiorectal fossa adjacent to the internal pudendal artery. After aspiration, 8 mL of 0.5% ropivacaine will be injected on each side, with ultrasound assessment of anesthetic spread. Postoperative analgesia will consist of standardized paracetamol and celecoxib. Rescue opioids will be administered for pain \>3/10 and converted to morphine milligram equivalents (MME) for analysis.

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Cumulative post operative opioid consumption at 48 Hours (MME)

    Cumulative opioid consumption from the end of surgery through 48 hours after surgery, expressed as morphine milligram equivalents (MME). All postoperative opioid analgesics administered during the observation period will be converted to MME using the prespecified opioid conversion table.

    Time frame: Post operative From the end of surgery to 48 hours after surgery

Secondary outcomes

  1. post operative pain intensity at rest

    Pain intensity at rest measured by Visual Analogic Scale (VAS) ruller.

    Time frame: post operative at 2 hours, 6 hours, 12 hours, 24 hours and 48 hours after end of surgery

  2. Post operative pain intensity during defecation

    Pain Intensity during defecation using Visual Analogic Scale (VAS) ruler

    Time frame: at the first post operative defecation and during the first 48 hours post operative observation period.

  3. Pain Intensity-time area under the curve over 48 hours after the end of surgery

    Area under the curve of post operative VAS pain scores from end of the surgery through 48 hours.

    Time frame: from end of the surgery to 48 hours after surgery

  4. cumulative post operative opioid consumption at 12 hours, 24 hours and 36 Hours

    cumulative post operative opioid consumption at 12 hours, 24 hours and 36 Hours expressed as morphine miligram equivalents (MME)

    Time frame: Post operative : at 12 hours, 24 hours and 36 Hours after the surgery

  5. Time to first rescue opioid administration

    Time from end of surgery to the first rescue opioid administration

    Time frame: Post operative : from end of surgery through 48 hours after surgery

  6. Proportion of participants who remain opioid free at 48 hours

    Proportion of participants who remain opioid free at 48 hours

    Time frame: post operative : From end of surgery through 48 hours after surgery

  7. Quatilty of recovery assessed using the score QoR-15

    Post operative Quatilty of recovery assessed using the score QoR-15

    Time frame: Post operative : 24 hours and 48 hours after the end of surgery

  8. Adverse events (Nausea Vomiting Urinary retention)

    Adverse events (Nausea Vomiting Urinary retention) from end of surgery through 48 hours after surgery

    Time frame: Post operative : from end of surgery through 48 hours after surgery

  9. Block related complications

    Occurence of complications related to pudendal nerve block

    Time frame: From block performance through 48 hours after surgery

  10. Length of hospital stay after surgery performed

    Length of hospital stay from end of surgery to hospital discharge

    Time frame: duration of post operative hospitalization : From end of surgery to hospital discharge up to one week

07

Study locations

No study locations are listed for this record.

08

References and documents

Publications

  • Levin D, Van Florcke D, Schmitt M, Kendall LK, Patel A, Doan LV, Kirpekar M. Fluoroscopy-Guided Transgluteal Pudendal Nerve Block for Pudendal Neuralgia: A Retrospective Case Series. J Clin Med. 2024 Apr 30;13(9):2636. doi: 10.3390/jcm13092636. PubMed 38731163 ↗
  • Kovacs P, Gruber H, Piegger J, Bodner G. New, simple, ultrasound-guided infiltration of the pudendal nerve: ultrasonographic technique. Dis Colon Rectum. 2001 Sep;44(9):1381-5. doi: 10.1007/BF02234802. PubMed 11584221 ↗
  • Soucy B, Luong DH, Michaud J, Boudier-Reveret M, Sobczak S. Accuracy of Ultrasound-Guided Pudendal Nerve Block in the Ischial Spine and Alcock's Canal Levels: A Cadaveric Study. Pain Med. 2020 Nov 1;21(11):2692-2698. doi: 10.1093/pm/pnaa136. PubMed 32451530 ↗
  • Xia S, Luo L, Wu W, Lu K, Jiang T, Li Y. The role of pudendal nerve block in hemorrhoid surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of double-blind randomized controlled trials. Front Med (Lausanne). 2023 Dec 13;10:1283512. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2023.1283512. eCollection 2023. PubMed 38152300 ↗
  • He J, Zhang L, Li DL, He WY, Xiong QM, Zheng XQ, Liao MJ, Wang HB. Ultrasound-Guided Pudendal Nerve Block Combined with Propofol Deep Sedation versus Spinal Anesthesia for Hemorrhoidectomy: A Prospective Randomized Study. Pain Res Manag. 2021 Feb 26;2021:6644262. doi: 10.1155/2021/6644262. eCollection 2021. PubMed 33727997 ↗
  • Mongelli F, Lucchelli M, La Regina D, Christoforidis D, Saporito A, Vannelli A, Di Giuseppe M. Ultrasound-Guided Pudendal Nerve Block in Patients Undergoing Open Hemorrhoidectomy: A Post-Hoc Cost-Effectiveness Analysis from a Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. 2021 Apr 28;13:299-306. doi: 10.2147/CEOR.S306138. eCollection 2021. PubMed 33953578 ↗
  • Bikfalvi A, Faes C, Freys SM, Joshi GP, Van de Velde M, Albrecht E. PROSPECT guideline for haemorrhoid surgery: A systematic review and procedure-specific postoperative pain management recommendations. Eur J Anaesthesiol Intensive Care. 2023 May 26;2(3):e0023. doi: 10.1097/EA9.0000000000000023. eCollection 2023 Jun. PubMed 39917290 ↗
  • Nadri S, Mahmoudvand H, Rokrok S, Tarrahi MJ. Comparison of Two Methods: Spinal Anesthesia and Ischiorectal Block on Post Hemorrhoidectomy Pain and Hospital Stay: A Randomized Control Trial. J Invest Surg. 2018 Oct;31(5):420-424. doi: 10.1080/08941939.2017.1349221. Epub 2017 Nov 27. PubMed 29172862 ↗
  • Naja Z, Ziade MF, Lonnqvist PA. Nerve stimulator guided pudendal nerve block decreases posthemorrhoidectomy pain. Can J Anaesth. 2005 Jan;52(1):62-8. doi: 10.1007/BF03018582. PubMed 15625258 ↗
  • Mongelli F, Treglia G, La Regina D, Di Giuseppe M, Galafassi J, Majno-Hurst PE, Christoforidis D. Pudendal Nerve Block in Hemorrhoid Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Dis Colon Rectum. 2021 May;64(5):617-631. doi: 10.1097/DCR.0000000000001985. PubMed 33591044 ↗
  • Steen CJ, Lam D, Chandra R, Chua JYJ, An V, Keck JO. Pudendal Nerve Block for Posthemorrhoidectomy Pain: A Prospective, Single-Blinded Randomized Control Trial. Dis Colon Rectum. 2022 Apr 1;65(4):546-551. doi: 10.1097/DCR.0000000000002293. PubMed 34759239 ↗

Individual participant data

Plan to share: Yes

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

Time frame: Beginning 2 months and ending 3 years after the publication of results")

Access criteria: Gross data and statistical analysis will be shared on demand

09

Updates

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

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT07813338
Lead sponsor
Vinmec Healthcare System
Responsible party
Sponsor
First posted
Sep 10, 2026
Start date
Sep 15, 2026 (estimated)
Primary completion
Aug 31, 2027 (estimated)
Completion
Sep 30, 2027 (estimated)
Last update
Sep 10, 2026

Study contacts

Philippe B Macaire, MD
Contact
ph.macaire@gmail.com
+84 0966103845
Nguyen H Thoai, MD
Contact
v.thoainh3@vinmec.com
+84 0974944472

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 not yet recruiting, as verified in Sep 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