[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"health-studies-list:{\"overallStatus\":[\"RECRUITING\",\"AVAILABLE\",\"NOT_YET_RECRUITING\"],\"leadSponsorName\":\"Antalya City Hospital\",\"orderBy\":\"LastUpdateSubmitDate:desc\",\"size\":25,\"offset\":0}":3,"health-study-condition:":314},{"pageToken":4,"total":5,"offset":6,"count":5,"results":7},null,12,0,[8,48,70,97,123,148,177,198,220,240,266,289],{"id":9,"slug":10,"hasResults":11,"nctId":12,"briefTitle":13,"officialTitle":14,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":15,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":16,"minAge":17,"maxAge":18,"enrollmentInfo":19,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":22,"phases":23,"briefSummary":25,"conditions":26,"keywords":32,"overallStatus":36,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":37,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":38,"startDateStruct":41,"completionDateStruct":43,"leadSponsor":45,"locationsCount":4},"100644066","penglfcn-block-vs-qipb-for-total-hip-arthroplasty-100644066",false,"NCT07667231","PENG+LFCN Block vs QIPB for Total Hip Arthroplasty","Comparison Between Quadro-iliac Plane Block (QIPB) and Pericapsular Nerve Group (PENG) Block Combined With Lateral Femoral Cutaneous Nerve Block for Total Hip Arthroplasty: a Randomized Controlled Trial","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Age between 18 and 80 years\n* American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I-III\n* Scheduled for elective unilateral primary total hip arthroplasty\n* Surgery planned under spinal anesthesia\n* Ability to understand and use the Numeric Rating Scale\n* Written informed consent provided\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Refusal to participate\n* Revision total hip arthroplasty\n* Bilateral total hip arthroplasty\n* Contraindication to spinal anesthesia\n* Contraindication to peripheral nerve block\n* Known allergy to local anesthetics or study drugs\n* Coagulopathy or anticoagulant use incompatible with neuraxial\u002Fregional anesthesia\n* Infection at the block injection site\n* Pre-existing neurological deficit involving the operative lower extremity\n* Peripheral neuropathy\n* Chronic opioid use\n* Cognitive impairment or inability to communicate reliably\n* Severe hepatic or renal failure\n* Body mass index \\>35 kg\u002Fm²\n* Pregnancy","ALL","18 Years","80 Years",{"count":20,"type":21},60,"ESTIMATED","INTERVENTIONAL",[24],"NA","This randomized clinical trial aims to evaluate and compare the analgesic efficacy and functional outcomes of the quadro-iliac plane block (QIPB) and the pericapsular nerve group (PENG) block combined with lateral femoral cutaneous nerve(LFCN) block in patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty. The primary outcome is the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) within the first 48 hours after surgery. Secondary outcomes include postoperative total opioid consumption, ıncidence of quadriceps motor block, time to first ambulation, block performance time, falls, length of hospital stay, block- related complications(hematoma,local anesthetic systemic complications, vascular puncture, and infection), patient satisfaction assessed using a Likert scale, and incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting.",[27,28,29,30,31],"Quadro-Iliac Plane Block","Pericapsular Nerve Group Block (PENG Block)","Hip Arthroplasty, Total","Pain Management","Lateral Femoral Cutaneous Nerve Block",[33,34,35],"QIPB","PENG","LFCN","NOT_YET_RECRUITING","2026-06-20",{"date":39,"type":40},"2026-06-25","ACTUAL",{"date":42,"type":21},"2026-11-15",{"date":44,"type":21},"2027-09-15",{"name":46,"class":47},"Antalya City Hospital","OTHER",{"id":49,"slug":50,"hasResults":11,"nctId":51,"briefTitle":52,"officialTitle":53,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":15,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":16,"minAge":17,"maxAge":18,"enrollmentInfo":54,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":22,"phases":55,"briefSummary":56,"conditions":57,"keywords":59,"overallStatus":36,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":37,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":65,"startDateStruct":67,"completionDateStruct":68,"leadSponsor":69,"locationsCount":4},"100644181","comparison-between-quadro-iliac-plane-block-qipb-and-supra-inguinal-fascia-iliaca-compartment-block-s-ficb-for-total-hip-arthroplasty-100644181","NCT07667218","Comparison Between Quadro-iliac Plane Block (QIPB) and Supra-Inguinal Fascia Iliaca Compartment Block (S-FICB) for Total Hip Arthroplasty","Comparison Between Quadro-iliac Plane Block (QIPB) and Supra-Inguinal Fascia Iliaca Compartment Block (S-FICB) for Total Hip Arthroplasty: a Randomized Controlled Trial",{"count":20,"type":21},[24],"This randomized clinical trial aims to evaluate and compare the analgesic efficacy and functional outcomes of the quadro-iliac plane block (QIPB) and the supra-inguinal fascia iliaca compartment block (S-FICB) in patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty.\n\nThe primary outcome is the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) within the first 48 hours after surgery. Secondary outcomes include postoperative total opioid consumption, ıncidence of quadriceps motor block, time to first ambulation, block performance time, falls, length of hospital stay, block- related complications(hematoma,local anesthetic systemic complications, vascular puncture, and infection), patient satisfaction assessed using a Likert scale, and incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting.",[27,58,29,30],"Supra-inguinal Fascia Iliaca Block",[60,61,62,63,64],"QİPB","S-FICB","HİP","PAİN","ARTHROPLASTY",{"date":66,"type":40},"2026-06-24",{"date":42,"type":21},{"date":44,"type":21},{"name":46,"class":47},{"id":71,"slug":72,"hasResults":11,"nctId":73,"briefTitle":74,"officialTitle":75,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":76,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":16,"minAge":17,"maxAge":77,"enrollmentInfo":78,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":22,"phases":79,"briefSummary":80,"conditions":81,"keywords":87,"overallStatus":36,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":90,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":91,"startDateStruct":93,"completionDateStruct":94,"leadSponsor":96,"locationsCount":4},"100641947","intertransverse-process-block-versus-m-tapa-block-after-laparoscopic-cholecystectomy-100641947","NCT07589491","Intertransverse Process Block Versus M-TAPA Block After Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy","Intertransverse Process Block Versus M-TAPA Block After Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Patients aged 18-65 years\n* ASA physical status I-III\n* Scheduled for elective laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy\n* Body mass index (BMI) 18-35 kg\u002Fm²\n* Ability to understand and use the patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) device\n* Ability to provide written informed consent\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Refusal to participate\n* Allergy to local anesthetics\n* Infection at the injection site\n* Coagulopathy or ongoing anticoagulant therapy\n* Chronic opioid use or opioid dependence\n* Severe hepatic or renal insufficiency\n* Pregnancy or breastfeeding\n* Cognitive impairment or inability to communicate pain scores\n* Body mass index (BMI) \\>35 kg\u002Fm²","65 Years",{"count":20,"type":21},[24],"This randomized clinical trial aims to evaluate and compare the analgesic efficacy of the Intertransverse Process Block (ITPB) and the Modified Thoracoabdominal Nerve Block through Perichondrial Approach (M-TAPA) in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The primary outcome is the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) score within the first 24 hours after surgery. Secondary outcomes include total opioid consumption, requirement for rescue analgesia, block- related complications and adverse effects (hematoma, pneumothorax, local anesthetic systemic complications, vascular puncture, and infection), patient satisfaction assessed using a Likert scale, quality of recovery assessed using the QoR-15 questionnaire, and incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting.",[82,83,84,85,86],"Intertransverse Process Block","Mtapa Block","Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy","Postoperative Pain","Regional Anaesthesia",[88,89],"M-TAPA","ITP","2026-06-15",{"date":92,"type":40},"2026-06-16",{"date":42,"type":21},{"date":95,"type":21},"2027-10-30",{"name":46,"class":47},{"id":98,"slug":99,"hasResults":11,"nctId":100,"briefTitle":101,"officialTitle":102,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":103,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":104,"minAge":17,"maxAge":105,"enrollmentInfo":106,"targetDuration":108,"studyType":109,"phases":4,"briefSummary":110,"conditions":111,"keywords":4,"overallStatus":113,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":114,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":115,"startDateStruct":117,"completionDateStruct":119,"leadSponsor":121,"locationsCount":122},"100641621","comparison-of-endoscopic-and-open-surgery-for-gynecomastia-100641621","NCT07653152","Comparison of Endoscopic and Open Surgery for Gynecomastia","Prospective Comparative Evaluation of Different Surgical Techniques in the Treatment of Gynecomastia: A Multicenter Study","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Male patients aged 18 to 60 years.\n* Clinically and\u002For ultrasonographically confirmed primary gynecomastia with palpable glandular tissue ≥2 cm.\n* Simon Grade II or Grade III gynecomastia.\n* Patients requesting surgical treatment because of cosmetic and\u002For psychosocial concerns.\n* Eligible for either endoscopic or conventional open nipple-areola complex-preserving mastectomy according to routine clinical practice.\n* Ability to provide written informed consent.\n* Willingness and ability to comply with the 12-month follow-up schedule.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Secondary gynecomastia caused by endocrine disorders, medications, hypogonadism, thyroid disease, or suspected malignancy.\n* Pseudogynecomastia (lipomastia without glandular proliferation).\n* Age younger than 18 years or older than 60 years.\n* Severe uncontrolled comorbidities that may increase surgical risk.\n* Previous chest or breast surgery, chest irradiation, or significant chest trauma.\n* Active infection or coagulation disorder.\n* Immunodeficiency disorders.\n* Inability to provide informed consent.\n* Inability to complete the planned follow-up period.","MALE","60 Years",{"count":107,"type":21},100,"12 Months","OBSERVATIONAL","The goal of this observational study is to compare the clinical outcomes, safety, and patient satisfaction of endoscopic versus conventional open surgical techniques in adult male patients undergoing surgery for gynecomastia.\n\nThe main questions it aims to answer are:\n\n* Does endoscopic gynecomastia surgery provide better aesthetic outcomes and patient satisfaction compared with conventional open surgery?\n* Does endoscopic surgery reduce postoperative complications, sensory changes of the nipple-areola complex, and visible scarring compared with conventional open surgery?\n\nResearchers will compare patients undergoing endoscopic nipple-areola complex-preserving mastectomy with patients undergoing conventional open nipple-areola complex-preserving mastectomy to evaluate differences in surgical outcomes, complications, cosmetic results, and quality of life.\n\nParticipants will:\n\n* Undergo gynecomastia surgery as part of their routine clinical care using either an endoscopic or conventional open technique.\n* Attend routine postoperative follow-up visits for up to 12 months.\n* Complete patient-reported outcome assessments, including pain and satisfaction questionnaires.\n* Undergo evaluation of scar quality, nipple-areola complex sensation, and postoperative complications during follow-up.",[112],"Gynecomastia","RECRUITING","2026-06-12",{"date":116,"type":40},"2026-06-17",{"date":118,"type":40},"2026-01-08",{"date":120,"type":21},"2028-01-08",{"name":46,"class":47},2,{"id":124,"slug":125,"hasResults":11,"nctId":126,"briefTitle":127,"officialTitle":128,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":129,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":16,"minAge":17,"maxAge":77,"enrollmentInfo":130,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":22,"phases":131,"briefSummary":132,"conditions":133,"keywords":136,"overallStatus":36,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":140,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":141,"startDateStruct":143,"completionDateStruct":145,"leadSponsor":147,"locationsCount":4},"100639163","transversalis-fascia-plane-block-versus-m-tapa-block-after-laparoscopic-inguinal-hernia-repair-100639163","NCT07619053","Transversalis Fascia Plane Block Versus M-TAPA Block After Laparoscopic Inguinal Hernia Repair","Transversalis Fascia Plane Block Versus Modified Thoracoabdominal Nerve Block Through Perichondrial Approach (M-TAPA) for Postoperative Analgesia After Laparoscopic Inguinal Hernia Repair: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Patients aged 18-65 years\n* ASA physical status I-III\n* Scheduled for elective laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair\n* Body mass index (BMI) 18-35 kg\u002Fm²\n* Ability to understand and use the patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) device\n* Ability to provide written informed consent\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Refusal to participate\n* Allergy to local anesthetics\n* Infection at the injection site\n* Coagulopathy or ongoing anticoagulant therapy\n* Chronic opioid use or opioid dependence\n* Severe hepatic or renal insufficiency\n* Pregnancy or breastfeeding\n* Cognitive impairment or inability to communicate pain scores\n* Body mass index (BMI) \\>35 kg\u002Fm²",{"count":20,"type":21},[24],"This randomized clinical trial aims to evaluate and compare the analgesic efficacy of the Transversalis Fascia Plane Block (TFPB) and the Modified Thoracoabdominal Nerve Block through Perichondrial Approach (M-TAPA) in patients undergoing laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair. The primary outcome is the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) score within the first 24 hours after surgery. Secondary outcomes include total opioid consumption, requirement for rescue analgesia, block-related complications and adverse effects (hematoma, local anesthetic systemic complications, vascular puncture, and infection), patient satisfaction assessed using a Likert scale, quality of recovery assessed using the QoR-15 questionnaire, and incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting.",[134,83,86,85,135],"Transversalis Fascia Plane Block","Laparoscopic Inguinal Hernia Repair",[137,88,138,139],"TFPB","İNGUİNAL HERNİA","TRANSVERSALİS FASCİA PLANE BLOCK","2026-05-26",{"date":142,"type":40},"2026-06-01",{"date":144,"type":21},"2026-11-30",{"date":146,"type":21},"2027-07-30",{"name":46,"class":47},{"id":149,"slug":150,"hasResults":11,"nctId":151,"briefTitle":152,"officialTitle":153,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":154,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":16,"minAge":17,"maxAge":77,"enrollmentInfo":155,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":22,"phases":157,"briefSummary":158,"conditions":159,"keywords":162,"overallStatus":36,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":168,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":169,"startDateStruct":171,"completionDateStruct":173,"leadSponsor":175,"locationsCount":176},"100637166","analgesic-efficacy-of-intertransverse-process-block-versus-erector-spinae-plane-block-100637166","NCT07583602","Analgesic Efficacy of Intertransverse Process Block Versus Erector Spinae Plane Block","Analgesic Efficacy of Intertransverse Process Block Versus Erector Spinae Plane Block in Robotic Colorectal Surgery: A Randomized Clinical Trial","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Patients aged 18-65 years\n* ASA physical status I-III\n* Scheduled for elective robotic colorectal surgery\n* Body mass index (BMI) between 18 and 35 kg\u002Fm²\n* Ability to understand and use the patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) device\n* Ability to provide written informed consent\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Refusal to participate\n* Allergy to local anesthetics\n* Infection at the injection site\n* Coagulopathy or ongoing anticoagulant therapy\n* Chronic opioid use or opioid dependence\n* Severe hepatic or renal insufficiency\n* Pregnancy or breastfeeding\n* Cognitive impairment or inability to communicate pain scores\n* Body mass index (BMI) \\\u003C18 or \\>35 kg\u002Fm²",{"count":156,"type":21},50,[24],"This randomized clinical trial aims to evaluate and compare the analgesic efficacy of the Intertransverse Process Block (ITP) and the Erector Spinae Plane (ESP) block in patients undergoing Robotic Colorectal Surgery. The primary outcome is the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) score within the first 24 hours after surgery. Secondary outcomes include total opioid consumption, requirement for rescue analgesia, block-related and systemic side effects (hematoma, pneumothorax, local anesthetic systemic complications, vascular puncture, and infection), patient and surgeon satisfaction assessed using a Likert scale, and quality of recovery assessed using the QoR-15 questionnaire, and incedence of postoperative nausea and vomiting.",[160,161,82,85],"Robotic Colorectal Surgery","Erector Spine Plane Block",[163,164,165,166,167],"esp","ıtp","robotic surgery","colorectal surgery","regional block","2026-05-17",{"date":170,"type":40},"2026-05-20",{"date":172,"type":21},"2026-08-30",{"date":174,"type":21},"2028-04-30",{"name":46,"class":47},1,{"id":178,"slug":179,"hasResults":11,"nctId":180,"briefTitle":181,"officialTitle":182,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":183,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":184,"minAge":17,"maxAge":77,"enrollmentInfo":185,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":22,"phases":186,"briefSummary":187,"conditions":188,"keywords":190,"overallStatus":36,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":191,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":192,"startDateStruct":193,"completionDateStruct":195,"leadSponsor":197,"locationsCount":4},"100640445","intertransverse-process-block-versus-m-tapa-block-after-laparoscopic-hysterectomy-100640445","NCT07599787","Intertransverse Process Block Versus M-TAPA Block After Laparoscopic Hysterectomy","Intertransverse Process Block Versus M-TAPA Block After Laparoscopic Hysterectomy: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Patients aged 18-65 years\n* ASA physical status I-III\n* Scheduled for elective laparoscopic hysterectomy\n* Body mass index (BMI) 18-35 kg\u002Fm²\n* Ability to understand and use the patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) device\n* Ability to provide written informed consent\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Refusal to participate\n* Allergy to local anesthetics\n* Infection at the injection site\n* Coagulopathy or ongoing anticoagulant therapy\n* Chronic opioid use or opioid dependence\n* Severe hepatic or renal insufficiency\n* Pregnancy or breastfeeding\n* Cognitive impairment or inability to communicate pain scores\n* Body mass index (BMI) \\>35 kg\u002Fm²","FEMALE",{"count":20,"type":21},[24],"This randomized clinical trial aims to evaluate and compare the analgesicefficacy of the Intertransverse Process Block (ITPB) and the Modified Thoracoabdominal Nerve Block through Perichondrial Approach (M-TAPA) in patients undergoing laparoscopic hysterectomy. The primary outcome is the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) score within the first 24 hours after surgery. Secondary outcomes include total opioid consumption, requirement for rescue analgesia, block- related complications and adverse effects (hematoma, pneumothorax, local anesthetic systemic complications, vascular puncture, and infection), patient satisfaction assessed using a Likert scale, quality of recovery assessed using the QoR-15 questionnaire, and incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting.",[82,83,189,85,86],"Laparoscopic Hysterectomy",[88,89],"2026-05-15",{"date":170,"type":40},{"date":194,"type":21},"2026-11-18",{"date":196,"type":21},"2027-11-30",{"name":46,"class":47},{"id":199,"slug":200,"hasResults":11,"nctId":201,"briefTitle":202,"officialTitle":203,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":204,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":16,"minAge":17,"maxAge":77,"enrollmentInfo":205,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":22,"phases":206,"briefSummary":207,"conditions":208,"keywords":211,"overallStatus":36,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":213,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":214,"startDateStruct":215,"completionDateStruct":217,"leadSponsor":219,"locationsCount":4},"100637643","intertransverse-process-block-versus-external-oblique-intercostal-plane-block-after-laparoscopic-sleeve-gastrectomy-100637643","NCT07591116","Intertransverse Process Block Versus External Oblique Intercostal Plane Block After Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy","Intertransverse Process Block Versus External Oblique Intercostal Plane Block for Postoperative Analgesia After Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Patients aged 18-65 years\n* ASA physical status I-III\n* Scheduled for elective laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy\n* Body mass index (BMI) \\>35 kg\u002Fm²\n* Ability to understand and use the patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) device\n* Ability to provide written informed consent\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Refusal to participate\n* Allergy to local anesthetics\n* Infection at the injection site\n* Coagulopathy or ongoing anticoagulant therapy\n* Chronic opioid use or opioid dependence\n* Severe hepatic or renal insufficiency\n* Pregnancy or breastfeeding\n* Cognitive impairment or inability to communicate pain scores\n* Body mass index (BMI) \\>35 kg\u002Fm²",{"count":20,"type":21},[24],"This randomized clinical trial aims to evaluate and compare the analgesic efficacy of the Intertransverse Process Block (ITPB) and the Subcostal External Oblique Intercostal Plane Block (EOIPB) in patients undergoing laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy. The primary outcome is the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) score within the first 24 hours after surgery. Secondary outcomes include total opioid consumption, requirement for rescue analgesia, block-related complications and adverse effects (hematoma, pneumothorax, local anesthetic systemic complications, vascular puncture, and infection), patient satisfaction assessed using a Likert scale, quality of recovery assessed using the QoR-15 questionnaire, and incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting.",[82,209,210,86,85],"External Oblique Intercostal Plane Block","Sleeve Gastrectomy",[89,212],"EOIPB","2026-05-09",{"date":191,"type":40},{"date":216,"type":21},"2026-12-15",{"date":218,"type":21},"2027-12-30",{"name":46,"class":47},{"id":221,"slug":222,"hasResults":11,"nctId":223,"briefTitle":224,"officialTitle":225,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":204,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":16,"minAge":17,"maxAge":77,"enrollmentInfo":226,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":22,"phases":227,"briefSummary":228,"conditions":229,"keywords":231,"overallStatus":36,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":213,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":234,"startDateStruct":235,"completionDateStruct":237,"leadSponsor":239,"locationsCount":176},"100638217","intertransverse-process-block-versus-subcostal-transversus-abdominis-plane-block-after-laparoscopic-sleeve-gastrectomy-100638217","NCT07591129","Intertransverse Process Block Versus Subcostal Transversus Abdominis Plane Block After Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy","Intertransverse Process Block Versus Subcostal Transversus Abdominis Plane Block for Postoperative Analgesia After Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial",{"count":20,"type":21},[24],"This randomized clinical trial aims to evaluate and compare the analgesic efficacy of the Intertransverse Process Block (ITPB) and the Subcostal Transversus Abdominis Plane Block (TAPB) in patients undergoing laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy. The primary outcome is the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) score within the first 24 hours after surgery. Secondary outcomes include total opioid consumption, requirement for rescue analgesia, block-related complications and adverse effects (hematoma, pneumothorax, local anesthetic systemic complications, vascular puncture, and infection), patient satisfaction assessed using a Likert scale, quality of recovery assessed using the QoR-15 questionnaire, and incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting.",[82,230,210,85,86],"Subcostal Transverse Abdominis Plane Block",[89,232,63,233],"TAP","SLEEVE GASTRECTOMİ",{"date":191,"type":40},{"date":236,"type":21},"2026-12-30",{"date":238,"type":21},"2028-05-30",{"name":46,"class":47},{"id":241,"slug":242,"hasResults":11,"nctId":243,"briefTitle":244,"officialTitle":245,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":246,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":16,"minAge":17,"maxAge":77,"enrollmentInfo":247,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":22,"phases":248,"briefSummary":249,"conditions":250,"keywords":254,"overallStatus":36,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":260,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":261,"startDateStruct":263,"completionDateStruct":264,"leadSponsor":265,"locationsCount":176},"100635477","comparison-of-serratus-posterior-superior-intercostal-plane-block-and-deep-serratus-anterior-plane-block-after-video-assisted-thoracoscopic-surgery-100635477","NCT07553195","Comparison of Serratus Posterior Superior Intercostal Plane Block and Deep Serratus Anterior Plane Block After Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery","Comparison of Serratus Posterior Superior Intercostal Plane Block and Deep Serratus Anterior Plane Block After Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Trial","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Patients aged 18-65 years\n* ASA physical status I-III\n* Scheduled for elective video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery\n* Body mass index (BMI) between 18 and 35 kg\u002Fm²\n* Ability to understand and use the patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) device\n* Ability to provide written informed consent\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Refusal to participate\n* Allergy to local anesthetics\n* Infection at the injection site\n* Coagulopathy or ongoing anticoagulant therapy\n* Chronic opioid use or opioid dependence\n* Severe hepatic or renal insufficiency\n* Pregnancy or breastfeeding\n* Cognitive impairment or inability to communicate pain scores\n* Body mass index (BMI) \\\u003C18 or \\>35 kg\u002Fm²",{"count":20,"type":21},[24],"This randomized clinical trial aims to evaluate and compare the analgesic efficacy of the Serratus Posterior Superior Intercostal Plane (SPSIP) and Deep Serratus Anterior Plane Block in patients undergoing Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery. The primary outcome is Visual Analog Scale (VAS) during the first 24 hours after surgery. Secondary outcomes include total opioid consumption, requirement for rescue analgesia, block performance time, block-related and systemic side effects (hematoma, pneumothorax, local anesthetic toxicity, vascular puncture, infection), Patient satisfaction assessed using a Likert scale, Quality of recovery assessed using the QoR-15 questionnaire.",[85,251,252,253],"Video Assisted Thoracic Surgery (VATS)","Serratus Posterior Superior Intercostal Plane Block","Deep Serratus Anterior Plane Block",[255,256,257,258,259],"spsıp","vats","sap","Serratus posterior superior intercostal block","deep serratus anterior plane block","2026-05-07",{"date":262,"type":40},"2026-05-11",{"date":144,"type":21},{"date":174,"type":21},{"name":46,"class":47},{"id":267,"slug":268,"hasResults":11,"nctId":269,"briefTitle":270,"officialTitle":271,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":246,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":16,"minAge":17,"maxAge":77,"enrollmentInfo":272,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":22,"phases":273,"briefSummary":274,"conditions":275,"keywords":278,"overallStatus":36,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":260,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":284,"startDateStruct":285,"completionDateStruct":286,"leadSponsor":288,"locationsCount":176},"100635478","spsip-vs-esp-block-for-analgesia-after-rib-fracture-surgery-100635478","NCT07553208","SPSIP vs ESP Block for Analgesia After Rib Fracture Surgery","Ultrasound-guided Serratus Posterior Superior Intercostal Plane Block Versus Erector Spinae Plane Block for Postoperative Analgesia After Surgical Stabilization of Rib Fractures: a Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial",{"count":20,"type":21},[24],"This randomized clinical trial aims to evaluate and compare the analgesic efficacy of the Serratus Posterior Superior Intercostal Plane (SPSIP) block and the Erector Spinae Plane (ESP) block in patients undergoing surgical stabilization of rib fractures. The primary outcome is the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) score within the first 24 hours after surgery. Secondary outcomes include total opioid consumption, requirement for rescue analgesia, block performance time, block-related and systemic side effects (hematoma, pneumothorax, local anesthetic systemic toxicity, vascular puncture, and infection), patient satisfaction assessed using a Likert scale, and quality of recovery assessed using the QoR-15 questionnaire.",[276,85,277],"Rib Fracture","Thoracic Trauma",[279,280,281,163,282,283],"serratus posterior superior intercostal plane block","spsıp block","erector spine plane block","rib fixation","regioanl anethesia",{"date":262,"type":40},{"date":42,"type":21},{"date":287,"type":21},"2028-06-15",{"name":46,"class":47},{"id":290,"slug":291,"hasResults":11,"nctId":292,"briefTitle":293,"officialTitle":294,"acronym":295,"eligibilityCriteria":296,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":184,"minAge":17,"maxAge":77,"enrollmentInfo":297,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":22,"phases":298,"briefSummary":299,"conditions":300,"keywords":304,"overallStatus":36,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":260,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":309,"startDateStruct":310,"completionDateStruct":311,"leadSponsor":313,"locationsCount":176},"100634221","comparison-of-serratus-posterior-superior-intercostal-plane-block-and-rhomboid-intercostal-block-in-patients-undergoing-breast-cancer-surgery-100634221","NCT07536867","Comparison of Serratus Posterior Superior Intercostal Plane Block and Rhomboid Intercostal Block in Patients Undergoing Breast Cancer Surgery","Comparison of Serratus Posterior Superior Intercostal Plane Block and Rhomboid Intercostal Block for Postoperative Analgesia Following Breast Cancer Surgery With Axillary Lymph Node Dissection: A Randomized Controlled Trial","SPSIP-RIB","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Female patients aged 18-65 years\n* ASA physical status I-III\n* Scheduled for elective breast cancer surgery with axillary lymph node dissection\n* Body mass index (BMI) between 18 and 35 kg\u002Fm²\n* Ability to understand and use the patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) device\n* Ability to provide written informed consent\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Refusal to participate\n* Allergy to local anesthetics\n* Infection at the injection site\n* Coagulopathy or ongoing anticoagulant therapy\n* Chronic opioid use or opioid dependence\n* Severe hepatic or renal insufficiency\n* Pregnancy or breastfeeding\n* Cognitive impairment or inability to communicate pain scores\n* Body mass index (BMI) \\\u003C18 or \\>35 kg\u002Fm²",{"count":20,"type":21},[24],"This randomized clinical trial aims to evaluate and compare the analgesic efficacy of the Serratus Posterior Superior Intercostal Plane (SPSIP) and Rhomboid Intercostal Block in patients undergoing Breast Cancer Surgery With Axillary Lymph Node Dissection. The primary outcome is Visual Analog Scale (VAS) during the first 24 hours after surgery. Secondary outcomes include total opioid consumption, requirement for rescue analgesia, block performance time, block-related and systemic side effects (hematoma, pneumothorax, local anesthetic toxicity, vascular puncture, infection), Patient satisfaction assessed using a Likert scale, quality of recovery assessed using the QoR-15 questionnaire.",[301,302,85,303],"Breast Cancer","Lymph Node Dissection","Mastectomy",[305,306,307,308,279],"SPSIP","rhomboid intercostal block","regional anesthesia","axillary dissection",{"date":262,"type":40},{"date":172,"type":21},{"date":312,"type":21},"2027-09-30",{"name":46,"class":47},""]