Skip to content

Comparison of Costoclavicular and Lateral Sagittal Infraclavicular Blocks

Effect of Costoclavicular Versus Lateral Sagittal Infraclavicular Block on Hemidiaphragmatic Function: A Randomized Clinical Study

Status
Completed
Phases
Unknown
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT07386470
Acronym
CCLS-ICB
Enrollment
91
Registered
2026-02-04
Start date
2022-10-15
Completion date
2023-04-15
Last updated
2026-02-05

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

Conditions

Hemidiaphragmatic Paralysis, Upper Extremity Surgery

Keywords

Infraclavicular brachial plexus block, hemidiaphragmatic paralysis, costoclavicular brachial plexus block

Brief summary

This randomized clinical study aims to compare the effects of two different ultrasound-guided infraclavicular brachial plexus block techniques-costoclavicular and lateral sagittal approaches-in patients undergoing forearm, wrist, or hand surgery. The primary objective of the study is to evaluate and compare the incidence of hemidiaphragmatic dysfunction associated with these two block techniques. Secondary outcomes include sensory and motor block characteristics, postoperative pain scores, analgesic requirements, and potential block-related complications. Eligible adult patients scheduled for elective forearm or hand surgery are randomly assigned to receive either a costoclavicular or a lateral sagittal infraclavicular nerve block using bupivacaine under ultrasound guidance. Standard general anesthesia and postoperative analgesia protocols are applied. The results of this study are expected to provide evidence on the relative safety and efficacy of these two infraclavicular block approaches, particularly regarding diaphragmatic function, and to help guide anesthesiologists in selecting the most appropriate regional anesthesia technique for upper extremity surgery.

Interventions

Ultrasound-guided infraclavicular brachial plexus block performed using either the costoclavicular or lateral sagittal approach with standardized local anesthetic volume.

Sponsors

Gazi University
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
DOUBLE (Subject, Outcomes Assessor)

Intervention model description

This was a prospective, randomized, parallel group study comparing two ultrasound guided infraclavicular block techniques

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to 80 Years
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

* Adults aged 18-80 years * ASA physical status I-III * Scheduled for forearm, wrist, or hand surgery * Planned infraclavicular brachial plexus block

Exclusion criteria

* Refusal of regional anesthesia * Known allergy to local anesthetics * Infection at the block site * Pre-existing neurological deficit in the operative limb * Severe pulmonary disease * Coagulopathy or sepsis * BMI \> 40 kg/m² * Psychiatric disorders

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Diaphragmatic excursionBaseline(pre-block) and 30 minutes after block performance.Diaphragmatic excursion measured by ultrasound during normal and deep breathing to asses the effect of costoclavicular and lateral sagittal infraclavicular block techniques.

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Sensory and motor block onset timeWithin the first 30 minutes after block performance.Time from completion of the infraclavicular block to achievement of complete sensory and motor block in the radial, median, ulnar, and musculocutaneous nerve distributions. Sensory and motor function were assessed every 5 minutes for up to 30 minutes after block performance, and block onset time was defined as the time to complete block.
Time to first postoperative analgesic requirementWithin the first 24 hours postoperatively.Time from the end of the surgery to the first analgesic requirement.

Countries

Turkey (Türkiye)

Contacts

PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATORIrfan Güngör, MD

Gazi University Faculty of Medicine

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 6, 2026