Evaluation of CT and Ultrasound-Assisted Thoracic Epidural Placement in Patients Undergoing Upper Abdominal and Thoracic Surgery:a single-center, prospective observational study

Evaluation of CT and Ultrasound-Assisted Thoracic Epidural Placement in Patients Undergoing Upper Abdominal and Thoracic Surgery

Status

Active, not recruiting

Phases

Early Phase 1

Study type

Observational

Source

ChiCTR

Registry ID

ChiCTR2200062030

Enrollment

Unknown

Registered

2022-07-19

Start date

2022-07-20

Completion date

Unknown

Last updated

2023-04-03

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

Conditions

thoracic epidural

Interventions

Case series:None

Eligibility

Sex/Gender

All

Age

18 Years to 100 Years

Inclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria: Inclusion criteria were age older than 18 years and American Society of Anesthesiology physical statuses I to IV undergoing any thoracic or upper abdominal surgery requiring epidural analgesia at T10 or higher

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion criteria: Exclusion criteria were contraindications to epidural catheter, pregnancy, preexisting coagulopathy, localized infection, and known allergy to local anesthetics, Failure to obtain informed consent.

Design outcomes

Primary

Measure	Time frame
first pass success rate;	—

Secondary

Measure	Time frame
number of needle passes;number of needle skin punctures;postoperative care unit (PACU) nu- merical rating scale (NRS) score for pain;actual lamina depth;Lamina depth was measured by ultrasound;actual LOR depth;number of interspace levels attempted;The time to obtain the ultrasound images and the skin markings;The duration of time required to palpate and mark these landmarks;total procedural time(assessment and insertion);patient satisfaction;failure of epidural analgesia;Incidence of adverse events;The epidural needle angled in the sagittal plane;Needle angle determination in the transverse plane;the difficulty of landmark palpation;procedural time from needle insertion to loss of resistance in the epidural space;The visibility of the complex under ultrasound;The type of operations;Operator rating;The residents learning curve;The length of the inferior transverse process measured by CT;The length of lower lamina measured by CT;the intervertebral space width measured by CT;Distance between spinal canal center and pedicle edge;The degree of conformity between ultrasonic location point and palpation marking point;	—

Measure

Time frame

number of needle passes;number of needle skin punctures;postoperative care unit (PACU) nu- merical rating scale (NRS) score for pain;actual lamina depth;Lamina depth was measured by ultrasound;actual LOR depth;number of interspace levels attempted;The time to obtain the ultrasound images and the skin markings;The duration of time required to palpate and mark these landmarks;total procedural time(assessment and insertion);patient satisfaction;failure of epidural analgesia;Incidence of adverse events;The epidural needle angled in the sagittal plane;Needle angle determination in the transverse plane;the difficulty of landmark palpation;procedural time from needle insertion to loss of resistance in the epidural space;The visibility of the complex under ultrasound;The type of operations;Operator rating;The residents learning curve;The length of the inferior transverse process measured by CT;The length of lower lamina measured by CT;the intervertebral space width measured by CT;Distance between spinal canal center and pedicle edge;The degree of conformity between ultrasonic location point and palpation marking point;

—

Countries

China

Contacts

Public ContactXiao Ying

The First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University

xiaoying@mail.sysu.edu.cn+86 13570521662

Outcome results

None listed

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