ClinicalTrials.gg
CompletedNCT07880535Updated Oct 19, 2026

COMPARİSON OF THE EFFECTS OF ULTRASOUND-GUİDED ERECTOR SPİNAE PLANE BLOCK AND INTRAMUSCULAR NONSTEROİDAL ANTİ-INFLAMMATORY DRUG ADMİNİSTRATİON ON INTRAOPERATİVE ANALGESİA AND PATİENT SATİSFACTİON DURİNG EXTRACORPOREAL SHOCK WAVE LİTHOTRİPSY

An interventional study of Ultrasound-guided erector spinae plane block and Diclofenac Sodium (DCS) in Patient Satisfaction, Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy and Erector Spinae Plane Block, sponsored by Sanliurfa Mehmet Akif Inan Education and Research Hospital. Completed at 1 site in Turkey (Türkiye). Open to participants aged 18 Years to 60 Years. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2026-10-19.

Sponsored by Sanliurfa Mehmet Akif Inan Education and Research Hospital · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment

From the registry’s dates

  • Registered 3 years 11 months after the study started (first participant enrolled Oct 2022, registered Oct 2026).
Updated Oct 19, 2026Newly registeredGo to Updates ↓
Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
90
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
18 Years to 60 Years
Sex
All
01

Study summary

The aim of this study is to compare two ways of reducing pain during extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL), a non-invasive treatment that breaks up kidney and urinary stones with shock waves. Many patients find ESWL painful. In this study, adult patients (18-60 years, ASA I-II) scheduled for ESWL are randomly assigned to one of three groups: (1) an ultrasound-guided erector spinae plane block (ESPB), an injection of local anesthetic near the spine on the side of the treated kidney; (2) an intramuscular injection of the anti-inflammatory painkiller diclofenac sodium before the procedure; or (3) no pain medication before the procedure (control). The main question is whether ESPB lowers pain scores during ESWL more than intramuscular diclofenac. Secondary questions include heart rate and blood pressure stability, the need for painkillers after the procedure, and patient satisfaction.

Read the detailed description

Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) is a widely used, non-invasive first-line treatment for urinary stones. Despite advances in lithotripter technology, ESWL still causes discomfort in a large proportion of patients, and analgesia is required in most cases. Pain during ESWL is considered to be cutaneous, somatic and visceral in origin (skin at the coupling site, periosteum, paraspinal muscles and renal capsule) and is mediated by the lower thoracic segments. The erector spinae plane block (ESPB), first described in 2016, delivers local anesthetic into the fascial plane between the transverse process and the erector spinae muscle, from where it spreads to the ventral and dorsal rami of the spinal nerves. It is used for analgesia in thoracic and abdominal surgery and has been reported to relieve renal colic. Its role during ESWL has been examined in only a few studies, and direct comparisons with intramuscular nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) regimens, which remain standard practice in many centres, are scarce. The study hypothesis is that ultrasound-guided ESPB provides lower intraoperative pain scores than intramuscular NSAIDs.

Design:

Prospective, randomized, open-label, three-arm, single-centre controlled trial conducted at the Stone Fragmentation Unit of the Urology Clinic, Harran University Hospital, Şanlıurfa, Türkiye. Approved by the Harran University Faculty of Medicine Clinical Research Ethics Committee (decision no. 2022/21/32, 31 October 2022). Written and verbal informed consent is obtained from all participants, and the study is conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.

Participants:

Adult patients aged 18-60 years, ASA physical status I-II, scheduled for ESWL for urinary stone disease. Exclusion criteria: refusal to participate, contraindication to intramuscular NSAIDs or to ESPB, inability to cooperate, advanced renal or hepatic insufficiency, and ASA III-V.

Randomization and blinding:

Ninety patients are allocated into three equal groups (n = 30 each) using a computer-free random number table; the allocation is concealed in sealed envelopes opened on the patient's arrival at the unit. Because all blocks are performed by the same anesthesiologist, who also records the intraoperative pain scores, patients and this investigator are not blinded. Postprocedural data (analgesic requirement and satisfaction) are collected by a separate investigator blinded to group allocation.

Interventions:

  • Group E (ESPB): With the patient prone and without premedication, a single-injection, unilateral, ultrasound-guided ESPB is performed at the level of the T7 transverse process on the side of the treated kidney. A total of 20 mL of local anesthetic (10 mL 0.5% bupivacaine + 5 mL 2% lidocaine + 5 mL 0.9% saline; final concentrations 0.25% bupivacaine and 0.5% lidocaine; total 50 mg bupivacaine and 100 mg lidocaine) is injected deep to the erector spinae muscle. Patients are observed for 30 minutes before transfer to the procedure room.
  • Group N (IM NSAID): 75 mg diclofenac sodium is given intramuscularly 30-45 minutes before ESWL.
  • Group K (control): No analgesic premedication, in accordance with the routine practice of the ESWL unit.

There is no intraprocedural rescue analgesia protocol; the session is stopped at the patient's request if pain is not tolerated, and the patient is rescheduled. Analgesics are given on request after the procedure, and this requirement is recorded as an outcome. All patients fast for 6-8 hours and are taught how to use the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) before the procedure.

Outcome assessments:

  • Primary outcome: Intraoperative pain intensity on the VAS (0-10), self-reported at the first shock wave (0 min) and at 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30 minutes until the end of the session. For each patient, the mean intraoperative VAS score is calculated by averaging all scores recorded during the procedure.
  • Secondary outcomes: Hemodynamic variables (mean arterial pressure, heart rate, SpO2, ECG) monitored throughout and recorded at baseline and at 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30 minutes; postprocedural analgesic requirement at 0, 2, 4, 8, 12 and 24 hours; patient satisfaction on a five-point Likert scale; complications related to the interventions.

Demographic data (age, sex, BMI), smoking status, ASA class, comorbidities and ESWL duration are also recorded.

Sample size:

Calculated with G*Power 3.1 from the VAS difference reported in a previous study of ultrasound-guided fascial plane blocks during ESWL (Yayık et al.). With 80% power and a two-sided alpha of 0.05, at least 27 patients per group are needed; this is increased to 30 per group (90 in total) to allow for dropouts.

Statistical analysis:

Analyses are performed with NCSS 2020. Normality is assessed with the Shapiro-Wilk test and box plots. Three-group comparisons use one-way ANOVA with Bonferroni post hoc testing, or the Kruskal-Wallis test with Dunn-Bonferroni post hoc testing, as appropriate. Within-group changes over time are analysed with repeated-measures analysis. Categorical variables are compared with the chi-square or Fisher-Freeman-Halton tests. The mean intraoperative VAS score is compared among groups with one-way ANOVA (effect size: eta squared), with the Kruskal-Wallis test as a sensitivity analysis. No values are imputed, and all randomized patients are included. Statistical significance is set at p \< 0.05.

02

Conditions studied

  • Patient Satisfaction
  • Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy
  • Erector Spinae Plane Block

Browse trials for

Keywords

  • anti-inflammatory agents
  • non-steroidal
  • visual analog scale
03

In context

Patient Satisfaction

278 studies on the registry are indexed under Patient Satisfaction; 130 are open to participants now.

This study's enrollment of 90 is close to the median of 93 across 212 interventional studies indexed under Patient Satisfaction.

Browse Patient Satisfaction studies →

Lead sponsor

Sanliurfa Mehmet Akif Inan Education and Research Hospital is the lead sponsor of 28 studies on the registry; 7 are open to participants now.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years to 60 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

  • Age 18 to 60 years

    • American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I-II
    • Scheduled for extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) for urinary stone disease
    • Written informed consent obtained

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • - Refusal to participate
  • Contraindication to intramuscular nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs
  • Contraindication to erector spinae plane block (e.g., local anesthetic allergy, infection at the injection site, coagulopathy)
  • Inability to cooperate
  • Advanced renal or hepatic insufficiency
  • ASA physical status III-V
05

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
Single (Outcomes assessor)
Enrollment
90 participants (actual)

Study arms

  • Experimental
    ESPB Group (Group E)

    Patients receive a single-injection, unilateral, ultrasound-guided erector spinae plane block (ESPB) on the side of the kidney to be treated, without premedication, with the patient in the prone position. At the level of the T7 transverse process, a total of 20 mL of local anesthetic solution (10 mL 0.5% bupivacaine + 5 mL 2% lidocaine + 5 mL 0.9% saline; final concentrations 0.25% bupivacaine and 0.5% lidocaine; total 50 mg bupivacaine and 100 mg lidocaine) is injected into the fascial plane deep to the erector spinae muscle. Patients are observed for 30 minutes after the block before being transferred to the procedure room for ESWL.

    Procedure: Ultrasound-guided erector spinae plane block

  • Active comparator
    IM NSAID Group (Group N)

    Patients receive 75 mg of diclofenac sodium intramuscularly 30-45 minutes before the start of ESWL. No regional block is performed.

    Drug: Diclofenac Sodium (DCS)

  • No intervention
    Control Group (Group K)

    Patients undergo ESWL without any analgesic premedication or regional block, in accordance with the routine practice of the ESWL unit at the time of the study. As in the other groups, the procedure is stopped at the patient's request if pain is not tolerated, and analgesics are given on request after the procedure.

Interventions

  • ProcedureUltrasound-guided erector spinae plane block

    Single-injection, unilateral, ultrasound-guided erector spinae plane block performed in the prone position on the side of the kidney to be treated, without premedication. At the level of the T7 transverse process, 20 mL of local anesthetic solution (10 mL 0.5% bupivacaine + 5 mL 2% lidocaine + 5 mL 0.9% saline; final concentrations 0.25% bupivacaine and 0.5% lidocaine; total 50 mg bupivacaine and 100 mg lidocaine) is injected into the fascial plane deep to the erector spinae muscle. ESWL is started after a 30-minute observation period.

  • 75 mg diclofenac sodium administered as a single intramuscular injection 30-45 minutes before the start of ESWL.

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Mean intraoperative pain score (Visual Analog Scale)

    Pain intensity during ESWL, self-reported by the patient on a 0-10 Visual Analog Scale (0 = no pain, 10 = worst imaginable pain). Scores are recorded at the first shock wave (0 min) and at 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30 minutes until the end of the session. For each patient, the mean intraoperative VAS score is calculated by averaging all scores recorded during the procedure.

    Time frame: During the ESWL procedure (from the first shock wave up to 30 minutes)

  2. Intraoperative pain scores at each time point (Visual Analog Scale)

    Pain intensity on a 0-10 Visual Analog Scale (0 = no pain, 10 = worst imaginable pain), compared between groups at each individual measurement time point during ESWL.

    Time frame: At the first shock wave (0 min) and at 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30 minutes of the procedure

  3. Postprocedural analgesic requirement

    Number (percentage) of patients requiring analgesic medication after ESWL, assessed by an investigator blinded to group allocation. Analgesics are given on patient request.

    Time frame: At 0, 2, 4, 8, 12 and 24 hours after the procedure

Secondary outcomes

  1. Mean arterial pressure

    Non-invasive mean arterial pressure (mmHg) monitored throughout the ESWL procedure.

    Time frame: Baseline (before the procedure) and at 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30 minutes of the procedure

  2. Heart rate

    Heart rate (beats/min) monitored by ECG throughout the ESWL procedure.

    Time frame: Baseline (before the procedure) and at 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30 minutes of the procedure

  3. Patient satisfaction

    Patient satisfaction with analgesia during ESWL, rated on a five-point Likert scale (1 = very dissatisfied, 5 = very satisfied) and assessed by an investigator blinded to group allocation.

    Time frame: Within 24 hours after the procedure

07

Study locations

1 site
  • Şanlıurfa Mehmet Akif İnan Training and Research Hospital
    Sanliurfa, 63300, Turkey (Türkiye)
08

References and documents

Publications

  • Bayindir S, Yildirim K, Oner SF, Bulut OK. USG-guided unilateral retrolaminar block decreases pain and enhances patient comfort during extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: a prospective study. Sci Rep. 2026 Mar 11;16(1):9215. doi: 10.1038/s41598-026-44086-3. PubMed 41813797 ↗
  • Ma Y, Lin L, Xiao K, Luo Z, Jin T. Efficiency and Safety of Erector Spinae Plane Block in Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy: A Meta-Analysis Based on Randomized Controlled Trials. Urology. 2022 Oct;168:64-71. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2022.07.017. Epub 2022 Jul 25. PubMed 35902000 ↗
  • Aras B, Uruc F, Ivelik HI. Re: Gul A, Gul M. Intracutaneous sterile water injection for pain relief during extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: comparison with diclofenac sodium. Urolithiasis. 2020 Apr;48(2):103-108. doi:10.1007/s00240-019-01147-9. Epub 2019 Jul 5. Urolithiasis. 2021 Aug;49(4):385. doi: 10.1007/s00240-020-01220-8. Epub 2020 Oct 29. No abstract available. PubMed 33123746 ↗

Individual participant data

Plan to share: No — Ethics committee approval covers only aggregate data analysis; there is no permission to share individual participant data

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 Oct 2022 to primary completion in Apr 2023, 6 months.

Of 137 non-industry interventional studies with no phase under Patient Satisfaction, half reached primary completion within 12 months of starting (the median), counting those still running; a quarter within 6 and three quarters within 23. This study's 6 months is below that.

Counting every sponsor, half of 139 studies reached it within 12 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 12, 2026
First posted
Oct 19, 2026
StartActual
Oct 30, 2022
Primary completionActual
Apr 30, 2023
CompletionActual
Apr 30, 2023
Last update
Oct 19, 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 19, 2026
Show all 1 update
  1. Oct 19, 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
NCT07880535
Lead sponsor
Sanliurfa Mehmet Akif Inan Education and Research Hospital
Responsible party
ABDULLAH SENGUL (Specialist Of Anesthesiology And Reanimation, Sanliurfa Mehmet Akif Inan Education and Research Hospital) — Principal investigator
First posted
Oct 19, 2026
Start date
Oct 30, 2022
Primary completion
Apr 30, 2023
Completion
Apr 30, 2023
Last update
Oct 19, 2026

Study contacts

ABDULLAH ŞENGÜL, MD
principal investigator · Şanlıurfa Mehmet Akif İnan Training and Research Hospital

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 Oct 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