Skip to content

Comparision of two approaches of infraclavicular brachial plexus block for below elbow fractures under USG and PNS guidance

Comparative evaluation of two approaches of infraclavicular brachial plexus block for below elbow orthopaedic surgeries under dual guidance of USG and PNS- A randomised single blinded clinical study

Status
Active, not recruiting
Phases
Unknown
Study type
Interventional
Source
CTRI
Registry ID
CTRI/2023/06/053528
Enrollment
80
Registered
2023-06-05
Start date
Unknown
Completion date
Unknown
Last updated
2023-06-26

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Health Condition 1: S62- Fracture at wrist and hand level Health Condition 2: S52- Fracture of forearm Health Condition 3: S50-S59- Injuries to the elbow and forearm Health Condition 4: S60-S69- Injuries to the wrist, hand and fingers Health Condition 5: S00-T88- Injury, poisoning and certain other consequences of external causes Health Condition 6: S529- Unspecified fracture of forearm Health Condition 7: S629- Unspecified fracture of wrist andhand

Interventions

Intervention1: Classical infraclavicular block: USG and PNS guided CIB under all aseptic precautions with injection Levobupivcaine 0.5% 15ml and injection lignocaine 2% 15ml -Procedure time - From th

Sponsors

GMERS Medical college and Hospital
Lead Sponsor

Eligibility

Inclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria: 1)Age: 18-60 years 2)BMI: 3) American society of anaesthesia grading: I and II 4) Forearm, hand and wrist fractures

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion criteria: 1) Patient refusal 2) Allergy to LA 3) Local site infection 4) Anatomical distortion of clavicle 5) Polytrauma 6) Pre-existing neurological deficit 7) Pre-existing systemic illness like uncontrolled hypertension, ischemic heart disease, severe pulmonary disease, renal or hepatic dysfunction,sepsis 8) Surgeries requiring tourniquet 9) Coagulopathy 10) Patients with hearing disability, dementia, psychiatric illness or mentally challenged, having language barrier, who cannot express scoring system used in the study

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frame
To compare the procedure time between both the groupsTimepoint: -Procedure time (at baseline) - From the contact of the ultrasound probe with the patient to the removal of needle

Secondary

MeasureTime frame
ComplicationsTimepoint: Complications if occur any will be observed intra-operative period;Needle passesTimepoint: During the procedure, number of times the needle required redirection or retraction of at least 10 mm for â?¥2 times will be recorded as an â??additional passâ??.;Needle visibilityTimepoint: Whole needle with tip-3 Needle course partially seen-2 Only needle impression-1 ;To compare onset of sensory & motor block in both groupsTimepoint: After LA injection, sensory & motor blockade will be evaluated by an observer every 5 min, until 30 min.;To compare success ratesTimepoint: Block success: When a minimal composite sensorimotor score of 14 is achieved, the surgeon can proceed with surgery. Block failure: Patients requiring supplemental analgesia, additional LA, general anaesthesia or having composite sensorimotor score 14 will be considered as a failure of study.

Countries

India

Contacts

Public ContactDr Bhavesh Dalwadi

GMERS medical college and hospital, Gotri, Vadodara

bhaveshkdalwadi@gmail.com6354210984

Outcome results

None listed

Source: CTRI (via WHO ICTRP) · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026