ClinicalTrials.gg
CompletedNCT07878013Updated Oct 16, 2026

Intertransverse Process Block Versus Erector Spinae Plane Block for Pain Relief in Lumbar Spine Surgery

An interventional study of Erector Spinae Plane Block and Intertransverse Process Block in Postoperative Pain Control, Lumbar Spine Surgery and Degenerative Lumbar Spine Diseases, sponsored by Hanoi Medical University. Completed at 1 site in Vietnam. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2026-10-16.

Sponsored by Hanoi Medical University · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment

From the registry’s dates

  • Registered 7 months after the study started (first participant enrolled Mar 2026, registered Oct 2026).
Updated Oct 16, 2026Newly registeredGo to Updates ↓
Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
90
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
18 Years and older
Sex
All
01

Study summary

The goal of this clinical trial is to learn whether two types of ultrasound-guided nerve block, the intertransverse process block and the erector spinae plane block, reduce pain and the need for opioid pain medicines during and after lumbar spine surgery in adults. It also compares the two blocks with each other.

The main questions it aims to answer are:

Do patients who receive either nerve block need less morphine in the first 24 hours after surgery than patients who receive only local anesthetic injected at the skin incision? Is there a difference between the two nerve blocks in pain scores, the amount of opioid medicine needed during and after surgery, the time until patients first ask for pain medicine, and side effects?

Researchers will compare three groups: an erector spinae plane block group, an intertransverse process block group, and a control group that receives local anesthetic infiltration at the incision site.

Participants will:

Be randomly assigned to one of the three groups before surgery Receive the nerve block on both sides of the spine with ropivacaine before general anesthesia (block groups), or local anesthetic infiltration along the planned incision after induction of anesthesia (control group) Undergo general anesthesia and lumbar spine surgery following the same standard protocol Use a patient-controlled analgesia pump that delivers morphine on demand for 24 hours after surgery Rate their pain at rest and during movement at set times over the first 24 hours, and be monitored for side effects such as nausea and vomiting

Read the detailed description

Background and rationale

Lumbar spine surgery is associated with moderate to severe postoperative pain, and opioid-based analgesia is limited by side effects such as nausea, vomiting, sedation and respiratory depression. The erector spinae plane block (ESPB) is an established component of multimodal analgesia for spine surgery. The intertransverse process block (ITPB) is a more recently described paraspinal technique in which local anesthetic is injected into the tissue between adjacent transverse processes, closer to the paravertebral space. Direct comparisons of the two techniques in lumbar spine surgery are scarce.

Block procedures

Both blocks are performed bilaterally before induction of general anesthesia, with the patient prone, under ultrasound guidance using a low-frequency curvilinear probe and an in-plane approach with a 10-cm block needle.

ESPB: the needle tip is placed between the deep surface of the erector spinae muscle and the posterior surface of the L3 transverse process.

ITPB: the needle tip is placed in the intertransverse space between the L2 and L3 transverse processes, anterior to the erector spinae muscle and posterior to the intertransverse ligament-muscle complex, without advancing further anteriorly.

Needle position is confirmed by hydrodissection with 2 mL of 0.9% saline after negative aspiration. Ropivacaine 0.375% (prepared from ropivacaine 0.5% and 0.9% saline in a 3:1 ratio) is administered at 2.5 mg/kg (maximum 150 mg), divided equally between the two sides. Sensory block is assessed by pinprick 20 minutes after injection using the Hollmén scale, and the cranial and caudal extent of the block is measured in centimetres from the injection level. A block is considered failed if no sensory change is detected 30 minutes after injection.

In the control group, after induction of anesthesia, the surgeon infiltrates 20 mL of 1% lidocaine with epinephrine 1:200,000 into the skin and subcutaneous tissue along both sides of the planned incision before skin incision.

Anesthesia protocol (all groups)

Anesthesia is induced with fentanyl 2 µg/kg, propofol 2-3 mg/kg and rocuronium 0.6 mg/kg, and maintained with sevoflurane at 1-1.5 MAC. Nociceptive response is assessed using the PRST score (blood pressure, heart rate, sweating, tearing). If PRST is ≥ 4, fentanyl 50 µg is given intravenously and may be repeated after 5 minutes. Paracetamol 1 g IV is given approximately 30 minutes before the end of surgery.

Postoperative analgesia

Once patients are awake in the recovery room and able to rate pain and use the device, intravenous morphine patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) is started: morphine 1 mg/mL, bolus 1 mg, lockout interval 8 minutes, no background infusion, maximum 15 mg per 4 hours. Patients are instructed to press the PCA button when pain is VAS ≥ 4. H0 is defined as the time the patient is awake in the recovery room and able to self-report pain and use PCA.

Sample size

Sample size was calculated for comparison of 24-hour morphine consumption between a block group and the control group, assuming a standard deviation of 6.54 mg (from a previous Vietnamese study of ESPB in lumbar spine surgery) and a minimum clinically important difference of 5 mg, with two-sided α = 0.05 and 80% power. This gave 27 patients per group; allowing for about 10% dropout, 30 patients per group (90 in total) were enrolled.

Randomization and statistical analysis

Eligible patients are randomly allocated in a 1:1:1 ratio to the three groups by drawing lots. Continuous variables are compared using one-way ANOVA or the Kruskal-Wallis test, as appropriate, and categorical variables using the chi-square or Fisher's exact test. Pairwise comparisons are adjusted with the Bonferroni method. Two-sided p \< 0.05 is considered statistically significant. Analyses are performed with SPSS version 20.0.

02

Conditions studied

  • Postoperative Pain Control
  • Lumbar Spine Surgery
  • Degenerative Lumbar Spine Diseases

Browse trials for

Keywords

  • Erector Spinae Plane Block
  • Intertransverse Process Block
  • Ultrasound-Guided Regional Anesthesia
  • Paraspinal Block
  • Opioid Consumption
  • Patient-Controlled Analgesia
  • Multimodal Analgesia
03

In context

Pain, Postoperative

5,640 studies on the registry are indexed under Pain, Postoperative; 1,230 are open to participants now.

This study's enrollment of 90 is above the median of 75 across 4,821 interventional studies indexed under Pain, Postoperative.

Browse Pain, Postoperative studies →

Lead sponsor

Hanoi Medical University is the lead sponsor of 54 studies on the registry; 17 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 or older
  • Scheduled for elective lumbar spine surgery
  • (ASA) physical status I or II
  • Able to give written after receiving full information about the study, the analgesic methods and their potential risks.

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • - Acute lumbar spine trauma
  • to regional anesthesia, including infection at the needle insertion site or severe coagulopathy ( > 1.5 or count \< 50 × 10\^9/L)
  • Previous lumbar spine surgery altering the anatomy at the planned block site
  • Known allergy or to any study drug
  • Severe cardiovascular, respiratory, hepatic or renal disease that may affect anesthesia, analgesia or outcome assessment
  • Psychiatric disorder, cognitive impairment or communication difficulty preventing understanding and use of the Visual Analogue Scale or the PCA device.
Terms in these criteria, in plain language(6)

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.

INR, PT and aPTT (clotting tests)

Blood tests of how long blood takes to clot. The INR is the prothrombin time (PT) put on a common scale; about 1 is usual for someone not taking a blood thinner.

Criteria often make an exception for people on a blood thinner such as warfarin, whose INR is raised on purpose.

Platelets

Blood cells that help blood clot. Too few raises the risk of bleeding and bruising. A usual adult range is about 150–400 × 10⁹/L (150,000–400,000 per µL); each lab has its own reference range.

Hypersensitivity

An allergy, or another reaction of the immune system, to a substance. “Hypersensitivity to the study drug” means a known allergic reaction to it — not every side effect a medicine can have.

05

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
None (open label)
Enrollment
90 participants (actual)

Study arms

  • Experimental
    Erector Spinae Plane Block (ESPB)

    Bilateral ultrasound-guided erector spinae plane block at the L3 transverse process before induction of general anesthesia, using ropivacaine 0.375% at 2.5 mg/kg (maximum 150 mg), divided equally between the two sides. Followed by standardized general anesthesia and intravenous morphine patient-controlled analgesia for 24 hours after surgery.

    Procedure: Erector Spinae Plane Block · Procedure: Morphine PCA

  • Experimental
    Intertransverse Process Block (ITPB)

    Bilateral ultrasound-guided intertransverse process block at the L2-L3 level before induction of general anesthesia, using ropivacaine 0.375% at 2.5 mg/kg (maximum 150 mg), divided equally between the two sides. Followed by standardized general anesthesia and intravenous morphine patient-controlled analgesia for 24 hours after surgery.

    Procedure: Intertransverse Process Block · Procedure: Morphine PCA

  • Active comparator
    Control (Local Infiltration)

    No nerve block. After induction of general anesthesia, the surgeon infiltrates 20 mL of 1% lidocaine with epinephrine 1:200,000 into the skin and subcutaneous tissue along both sides of the planned incision before skin incision. Followed by standardized general anesthesia and intravenous morphine patient-controlled analgesia for 24 hours after surgery.

    Procedure: Local anesthetic infiltration · Procedure: Morphine PCA

Interventions

  • ProcedureErector Spinae Plane Block

    Bilateral ultrasound-guided injection of local anesthetic between the erector spinae muscle and the L3 transverse process, performed in the prone position before induction of general anesthesia.

  • ProcedureIntertransverse Process Block

    Bilateral ultrasound-guided injection of local anesthetic into the intertransverse space between the L2 and L3 transverse processes, anterior to the erector spinae muscle and posterior to the intertransverse ligament complex, performed in the prone position before induction of general anesthesia.

  • ProcedureLocal anesthetic infiltration

    Subcutaneous infiltration along both sides of the planned skin incision by the surgeon after induction of general anesthesia and before skin incision.

  • ProcedureMorphine PCA

    Intravenous morphine 1 mg/mL via patient-controlled analgesia: 1 mg bolus, 8-minute lockout interval, no background infusion, maximum 15 mg per 4 hours, for 24 hours after surgery.

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Cumulative Morphine Consumption Within 24 Hours After Surgery

    Total amount of intravenous morphine (mg) delivered by the patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) pump, including any supplemental morphine, from Hour 0 to Hour 24. Hour 0 is defined as the time the participant is awake in the recovery room and able to self-report pain and use the PCA device.

    Time frame: From Hour 0 (awake in the recovery room) to Hour 24 after surgery

Secondary outcomes

  1. Cumulative Morphine Consumption Within 12 Hours After Surgery

    Total amount of intravenous morphine (mg) delivered by the PCA pump, including any supplemental morphine, from Hour 0 to Hour 12.

    Time frame: From Hour 0 (awake in the recovery room) to Hour 12 after surgery

  2. Pain Score at Rest

    Pain intensity at rest measured on a 0-10 Visual Analogue Scale (0 = no pain, 10 = worst imaginable pain). One score is recorded at each time point.

    Time frame: Hour 0 (awake in the recovery room), and Hours 1, 2, 4, 8, 12 and 24 after surgery

  3. Pain Score on Movement

    Pain intensity on movement measured on a 0-10 Visual Analogue Scale (0 = no pain, 10 = worst imaginable pain). At each time point, the participant is asked to cough and flex the knees, then rates the worst pain experienced during these movements as a single score.

    Time frame: Hour 0 (awake in the recovery room), and Hours 1, 2, 4, 8, 12 and 24 after surgery

  4. Total Intraoperative Fentanyl Consumption

    Total fentanyl dose (µg) from induction of anesthesia to the end of surgery, including the induction dose and supplemental doses given when the PRST score (blood pressure, heart rate, sweating, tearing) is 4 or higher.

    Time frame: From induction of anesthesia to the end of surgery

  5. Intraoperative Heart Rate

    Heart rate (beats/min)

    Time frame: Before induction, before intubation, after intubation, before skin incision, 5, 15, 30 and 60 minutes after skin incision, before skin closure, and 5 minutes after skin closure.

  6. Intraoperative Mean Arterial Pressure

    Mean arterial pressure (mmHg)

    Time frame: Before induction, before intubation, after intubation, before skin incision, 5, 15, 30 and 60 minutes after skin incision, before skin closure, and 5 minutes after skin closure

  7. Postoperative Heart Rate

    Heart rate (beats/min)

    Time frame: Hour 0 (awake in the recovery room), and Hours 1, 2, 4, 8, 12 and 24 after surgery

  8. Postoperative Mean Arterial Pressure

    Mean arterial pressure (mmHg)

    Time frame: Hour 0 (awake in the recovery room), and Hours 1, 2, 4, 8, 12 and 24 after surgery

  9. Postoperative Respiratory Rate

    Respiratory rate (breaths/min)

    Time frame: Hour 0 (awake in the recovery room), and Hours 1, 2, 4, 8, 12 and 24 after surgery

  10. Postoperative Peripheral Oxygen Saturation

    Peripheral oxygen saturation (%) measured by pulse oximetry

    Time frame: Hour 0 (awake in the recovery room), and Hours 1, 2, 4, 8, 12 and 24 after surgery

  11. Time to First Analgesic Request

    Time (minutes) from Hour 0 to the participant's first PCA demand. Participants are instructed to press the PCA button when pain is 4 or higher on the Visual Analogue Scale.

    Time frame: From Hour 0 (awake in the recovery room) up to Hour 24 after surgery

07

Study locations

1 site
  • Hanoi Medical University
    Hanoi, 100000, Vietnam
08

References and documents

Publications

  • Asker D, Baytar C, Baytar MS, Kurada G, Bollucuoglu K, Okyay RD, Incegul BGK, Piskin O, Ayoglu H. Intertransverse process and modified thoracolumbar interfascial plane blocks compared with conventional analgesia in lumbar disc herniation surgery: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Anesthesiol. 2026 Jul 14. doi: 10.1186/s12871-026-04094-2. Online ahead of print. PubMed 42449236 ↗
  • Qian L, Zhang H, Miao Y, Qu Z, Zhang Y, Hua B, Hua Z. Comparison between ultrasound-guided intertransverse process and erector spinae plane blocks for breast cancer surgery: A randomised controlled trial. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2025 Mar 1;42(3):224-232. doi: 10.1097/EJA.0000000000002091. Epub 2024 Oct 29. PubMed 39474710 ↗
  • Wang CW, Zou P, Zhang ZX, Si MY, Yi QG, Zhan LF. Distribution pattern of different volumes of ropivacaine in ultrasound-guided intertransverse process block: a randomized, blinded, computed tomography imaging study. BMC Anesthesiol. 2025 Apr 5;25(1):155. doi: 10.1186/s12871-025-03017-x. PubMed 40188337 ↗
  • Yu X, Liu C. Intertransverse process block: A narrative review. J Clin Anesth. 2025 Jun;104:111857. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinane.2025.111857. Epub 2025 May 5. PubMed 40328198 ↗
  • Varela V, Ruiz C, Montecinos S, Prats-Galino A, Sala-Blanch X. Spread of local anesthetic injected in the paravertebral space, intertransverse processes space, and erector spinae plane: a cadaveric model. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2024 Mar 4;49(3):228-232. doi: 10.1136/rapm-2023-104342. PubMed 37607803 ↗

Individual participant data

Plan to share: Yes — De-identified individual participant data underlying the results reported in publications will be shared upon reasonable request to the principal investigator, after approval of a methodologically sound proposal and signing of a data access agreement.

Supporting information: Study protocol, Statistical analysis plan

Time frame: Beginning 3 months and ending 5 years after publication of the main article.

Access criteria: Researchers who provide a methodologically sound proposal for a purpose approved by the principal investigator. Requests should be directed to the corresponding author. Data will be provided without personal identifiers, and sharing will comply with the requirements of the institutional ethics committee.

09

Timeline

1 registry update 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

Ran from Mar 2026 to primary completion in Aug 2026, 5 months.

Of 2,089 non-industry interventional studies with no phase under Pain, Postoperative, half reached primary completion within 11 months of starting (the median), counting those still running; a quarter within 6 and three quarters within 23. This study's 5 months is below that.

Counting every sponsor, half of 2,102 studies reached it within 11 months; a quarter within 6 and three quarters within 23.

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

Registered
Oct 2, 2026
First posted
Oct 16, 2026
StartActual
Mar 1, 2026
Primary completionActual
Aug 31, 2026
CompletionActual
Aug 31, 2026
Last update
Oct 16, 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.
Registered
First appeared on the registry. No changes since
Oct 16, 2026
Show all 1 update
  1. Oct 16, 2026
    First appeared on the registry

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
NCT07878013
Lead sponsor
Hanoi Medical University
Responsible party
Sponsor
First posted
Oct 16, 2026
Start date
Mar 1, 2026
Primary completion
Aug 31, 2026
Completion
Aug 31, 2026
Last update
Oct 16, 2026

Oversight

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

Not currently enrolling

This study is completed, 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