Skip to content

Erector Spinae Plane Block Versus Transversus Abdominis Plane Block in Abdominoplasty Surgery

Erector Spinae Plane Block: An Analgesic Technique as an Alternative to Transversus Abdominis Plane Block in Abdominoplasty Surgery

Status
UNKNOWN
Phases
NA
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT03940885
Enrollment
69
Registered
2019-05-07
Start date
2019-04-01
Completion date
2021-06-30
Last updated
2020-09-25

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

Conditions

Abdominoplasty

Brief summary

Abdominoplasty is one of the most popular body-contouring procedures. Patients that undergo body-contouring abdominoplasty usually have important analgesic requirements. Given the substantial incision and soft-tissue undermining associated with this procedure, postoperative pain is a concern for patients and surgeons. Previous studies have typically incorporated multiple nerve blocks to improve analgesia after abdominoplasty. Different anesthetic techniques have been developed to overcome this problem such as Epidural anesthesia, Transversus abdominis plane block either open technique or ultrasound-guided, Paravertebral block and Erector Spinea plane block. Improving postoperative pain control in this kind of surgery leads to earlier mobilization, shortened hospital stay, reduced hospital costs, and increased patient satisfaction. The ultrasound-guided erector spinae plane (ESP) block is a recent block described for various surgeries for postoperative analgesia. It is reported that it have an analgesic effect on somatic and visceral pain by affecting the ventral rami and rami communicantes that include sympathetic nerve fibres, as LA spreads through the paravertebral space. When performed bilaterally it has been reported to be as effective as thoracic epidural analgesia. The transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block is a technique of locoregional anesthesia that blocks the sensorial afferent nerves localized between the transversus abdominis muscle and the internal oblique muscle. In this study, the analgesic efficacy and duration of ultrasound (US) guided Erector spinea plane block and Transversus abdominis plane block when Lidocaine HCL is added as an adjuvant to bupivacaine will be compared.

Detailed description

Sample size was calculated using Power Analysis and Sample Size software program (PASS) version 15.0.5 for windows (2017) using previous results with the mean opioid consumption in the first postoperative day as the primary outcome. Effect size of 0.5 (medium effect size) was calculated using the difference between the mean opioid consumption in TAB group (140 mg) and that in ESPB group (124.6 mg) with an estimated standard deviation of 30 in both groups. This study will add a control group in which only intravenous analgesics will be used; hence the aforementioned effect size was used for sample size calculation using a one-way ANOVA test. Sample sizes of 18 patients in each group are needed to achieve 90% power (1-β) to detect differences among the means using an F test with a 0.05 significance level (α). The size of the variation in the means is represented by the effect size f = σm / σ, which is 0.5. A 20% drop out is expected so the drop-out inflated sample size will be 23 patients in each group.

Interventions

PROCEDUREErector spinea plane block group

Which will receive ultrasound-guided erector spinea plane block bilaterally and the local anesthetic injected will be total volume 25 ml on each side consisting of 15ml of 0.5% plus 5 ml 2% lidocaine HCL plus 5 ml saline

PROCEDURETransversus abdominis plane block

Which will receive ultrasound-guided Transversus Abdominis plane block bilaterally and the local anesthetic used will be total volume 25 ml on each side consisting of 15ml of 0.5% plus 5 ml 2% lidocaine HCL plus 5 ml saline

PROCEDUREControl group

this group will receive only standard general anesthesia

Sponsors

Mansoura University
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
SUPPORTIVE_CARE
Masking
SINGLE (Outcomes Assessor)

Intervention model description

single-blind study

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
25 Years to 65 Years
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

* American society of anesthesiologist grade I-II

Exclusion criteria

* Patient refusal. * Local skin infection and sepsis at the site of the block. * Allergy to local anesthetic used. * Hematological diseases * Bleeding disease. * Coagulation abnormality. * Psychiatric disorders.

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Total opioid consumptionFor 24 hours after performing blockcumulative consumption of rescue opioids during the first postoperative day

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Postoperative visual analogue scorefor 24 hours after performing blockpostoperative visual analogue score (VAS)which will be used to determine the postoperative pain levels in patients. ( 0 representing no pain and 10 is the worst imaginable pain) will be assessed at 2h, 4h,6h,12h,18h and 24h postoperative. Diclofenac75 mg IV and paracetamol 500 mg will be given to all patients in the three groups every 12 hours. If VAS is \> 4 patient will receive pethidine 25 mg IV
Cortisol levelFor one hour after performing blockCortisol level will be assayed in the serum
Heart rateFor 24 hours after surgeryChanges in heart rate
Duration of analgesiafor 24 hours after performing blockthe first time patient requests analgesia postoperatively
Peripheral oxygen saturationFor 24 hours after surgeryChanges in peripheral oxygen saturation as measured with pulse oximetry
Nausea and vomitingFor 24 hour after surgery0: No nausea, 1: mild nausea, 2: moderate nausea, 3: severe nausea or vomiting
Mean arterial blood pressureFor 24 hours after surgeryChanges in mean arterial blood pressure

Countries

Egypt

Contacts

Primary ContactMona A Hasheesh, MD
drmonahasheesh@hotmail.com01223912912947
Backup ContactHanaa M Elbendary, MD
hanaa_elbendary@yahoo.com00201005781768

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026