[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"health-studies-list:{\"conditionNormalized\":\"erector-spinae-plane-block\",\"overallStatus\":[\"RECRUITING\",\"AVAILABLE\",\"NOT_YET_RECRUITING\"],\"orderBy\":\"LastUpdateSubmitDate:desc\",\"size\":25,\"offset\":0}":3,"health-study-condition:erector-spinae-plane-block":29},{"pageToken":4,"total":5,"offset":6,"count":7,"results":8},null,27,0,25,[9,51,79,103,130,156,184,211,237,258,282,311,338,359,380,410,436,463,490,516,542,562,585,605,629],{"id":10,"slug":11,"hasResults":12,"nctId":13,"briefTitle":14,"officialTitle":14,"acronym":15,"eligibilityCriteria":16,"healthyVolunteers":12,"sex":17,"minAge":18,"maxAge":19,"enrollmentInfo":20,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":23,"phases":24,"briefSummary":26,"conditions":27,"keywords":33,"overallStatus":38,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":39,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":40,"startDateStruct":43,"completionDateStruct":45,"leadSponsor":47,"locationsCount":50},"100632151","effect-of-preoperative-erector-spinae-plane-block-on-recovery-quality-time-to-return-to-daily-activities-and-postoperative-pain-scores-in-inguinal-hernia-surgery-100632151",false,"NCT07509957","Effect of Preoperative Erector Spinae Plane Block on Recovery Quality, Time to Return to Daily Activities, and Postoperative Pain Scores in Inguinal Hernia Surgery","ESPB for IHR","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n1. Patients aged between 18 and 65 years\n2. Patients scheduled to undergo open IHT surgery under spinal anesthesia (unilateral)\n3. Both male and female patients\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n1. Patients with coagulation disorders\n2. Patients with chronic opioid use\n3. Patients who develop intraoperative complications\n4. Patients with a preoperative Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) pain score ≥4\n5. Patients with a history of revision (recurrent) surgery\n6. Patients unable to communicate for any reason\n7. Patients who decline to participate in the study","ALL","18 Years","65 Years",{"count":21,"type":22},60,"ESTIMATED","INTERVENTIONAL",[25],"NA","This study aims to evaluate the effect of the erector spinae plane block (ESPB), performed after surgery, on quality of recovery, postoperative pain, and time to return to daily activities in patients undergoing open inguinal hernia repair under spinal anesthesia.\n\nPostoperative pain following inguinal hernia surgery may delay recovery and negatively affect patients' return to normal daily life. Although ESPB has been widely used as an effective analgesic technique in various surgical procedures, its effectiveness in inguinal hernia repair remains limited and not well established.\n\nIn this randomized controlled study, patients will be divided into two groups: one group will receive ESPB after surgery, while the control group will not receive any block. All patients will receive standard postoperative analgesia.\n\nQuality of recovery, acute pain scores, and analgesic consumption will be assessed within the first 24 hours after surgery, and return to daily activities will be evaluated 30 days after surgery.\n\nThe primary outcome of this study is quality of recovery assessed using the Quality of Recovery-15 (QoR-15) questionnaire. QoR-15 scores range from 0 to 150, with higher scores indicating better recovery. Scores will be recorded preoperatively and 24 hours after surgery.\n\nSecondary outcomes include postoperative pain intensity, total opioid consumption, and time to return to daily activities. Pain intensity will be assessed using the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), where 0 indicates no pain and 10 indicates the worst pain imaginable, at 15, 30, 60, and 120 minutes, as well as 6, 12, and 24 hours after surgery.\n\nTotal opioid consumption will be determined by recording the cumulative dose of intravenous tramadol administered as rescue analgesia within the first 24 hours after surgery. Time to return to daily activities will be evaluated via telephone follow-up 30 days after surgery.",[28,29,30,31,32],"Inguinal Hernia Unilateral","Erector Spinae Plane Block","Quality of Recovery (QoR-15)","Numeric Rating Scale","Return to Daily Activity",[34,29,35,36,32,37],"Inguinal Hernia Repair","Regionel Anesthesia","Quality of Recovery","Postoperative Pain","RECRUITING","2026-07-01",{"date":41,"type":42},"2026-07-02","ACTUAL",{"date":44,"type":42},"2026-04-04",{"date":46,"type":22},"2026-07-16",{"name":48,"class":49},"Sanliurfa Education and Research Hospital","OTHER_GOV",2,{"id":52,"slug":53,"hasResults":12,"nctId":54,"briefTitle":55,"officialTitle":56,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":57,"healthyVolunteers":12,"sex":17,"minAge":18,"maxAge":58,"enrollmentInfo":59,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":23,"phases":61,"briefSummary":62,"conditions":63,"keywords":67,"overallStatus":68,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":69,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":70,"startDateStruct":72,"completionDateStruct":73,"leadSponsor":75,"locationsCount":78},"100644018","the-effect-of-liposomal-bupivacaine-erector-spinae-plane-block-100644018","NCT07667439","The Effect of Liposomal Bupivacaine Erector Spinae Plane Block","The Effect of Liposomal Bupivacaine Erector Spinae Plane Block on Postoperative Pain in Patients Undergoing Open Upper Abdominal Surgery: A Randomized, Controlled, Double-Blind Trial","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n1. Patients scheduled for elective open upper abdominal surgery, including open liver, gastric and pancreatic surgery.\n2. Patients receiving general anesthesia with tracheal intubation.\n3. Aged from 18 to 80 years old.\n4. Patients with American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status class Ⅰ-Ⅲ.\n5. Patients who can understand the trial content, are willing to strictly follow the clinical research protocol and complete the trial, and voluntarily sign the informed consent form.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n1. Pregnant or lactating women.\n2. Patients complicated with severe primary diseases of the lung, liver, kidney, cardiovascular system and hematopoietic system.\n3. Bleeding tendency or coagulation dysfunction, defined as international normalized ratio (INR) ≥ 1.4, activated partial thromboplastin time \\> 38 s, or platelet count \\\u003C 80×10⁹\u002FL.\n4. Patients with aggravated cardiac diseases (complex congenital heart disease, heart failure and valvular disease) or pulmonary insufficiency.\n5. Skin infection at the puncture site for erector spinae plane block (ESPB).\n6. Previous history of neurological or psychiatric diseases, with inability to read, understand and communicate.\n7. Current obstructive or restrictive pulmonary disease.\n8. Patients with BMI greater than 30 kg\u002Fm².\n9. Drug abuse, long-term regular use of analgesics, or allergy to the study drugs.\n10. Patients who refuse to provide informed consent.\n11. Those enrolled in other randomized controlled trials simultaneously or with other conditions unsuitable for participation in this trial.","80 Years",{"count":60,"type":22},148,[25],"This is a single-center, randomized, controlled, double-blind clinical trial. A total of 148 patients undergoing elective open upper abdominal surgery will be included and randomly assigned 1:1 to receive ultrasound-guided erector spinae plane block with liposome bupivacaine plus bupivacaine hydrochloride or bupivacaine hydrochloride alone. The primary outcome is the AUC of resting pain scores from 0 to 72 hours postoperatively. This study aims to evaluate the analgesic efficacy and safety of liposome bupivacaine and provide a long-acting and safe postoperative analgesia strategy.",[64,29,65,66],"Liposome Bupivacaine","Postoperative Analgesia","Randomized Controlled Trial",[64,29,65,66],"NOT_YET_RECRUITING","2026-06-24",{"date":71,"type":42},"2026-06-25",{"date":39,"type":22},{"date":74,"type":22},"2027-02-05",{"name":76,"class":77},"Second Affiliated Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University","OTHER",1,{"id":80,"slug":81,"hasResults":12,"nctId":82,"briefTitle":83,"officialTitle":84,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":85,"healthyVolunteers":12,"sex":17,"minAge":18,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":86,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":23,"phases":88,"briefSummary":89,"conditions":90,"keywords":4,"overallStatus":38,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":94,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":95,"startDateStruct":97,"completionDateStruct":99,"leadSponsor":101,"locationsCount":78},"100634234","analgesic-efficacy-of-quadro-iliac-plane-block-versus-erector-spinae-plane-in-total-hip-arthroplasty-100634234","NCT07537036","Analgesic Efficacy of Quadro-Iliac Plane Block Versus Erector Spinae Plane in Total Hip Arthroplasty","Analgesic Efficacy of Quadro-Iliac Plane Block Versus Erector Spinae Plane in Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Randomized Non-Inferiority Trial","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Age ≥ 18 years.\n* Both sexes.\n* American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) physical status I-III.\n* Undergoing total hip arthroplasty (THA) under spinal anesthesia.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* History of allergies to local anesthetics.\n* Opioid dependency.\n* Body mass index (BMI) \\> 35 kg\u002Fm2.\n* Cognitive impairment.\n* Bleeding or coagulation disorders.\n* Psychiatric and neurological disorder.\n* Local infection at the site of injection.\n* Severe heart, lung, liver, and renal dysfunction.\n* Emergency surgery.",{"count":87,"type":22},76,[25],"This study aims to compare the Quadro-Iliac Plane Block versus Erector Spinae Plane Block after total hip arthroplasty.",[91,92,29,93],"Analgesic Efficacy","Quadro-Iliac Plane Block","Total Hip Arthroplasty","2026-06-22",{"date":96,"type":42},"2026-06-23",{"date":98,"type":42},"2026-04-18",{"date":100,"type":22},"2026-11-30",{"name":102,"class":77},"Tanta University",{"id":104,"slug":105,"hasResults":12,"nctId":106,"briefTitle":107,"officialTitle":108,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":109,"healthyVolunteers":12,"sex":17,"minAge":4,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":110,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":23,"phases":112,"briefSummary":114,"conditions":115,"keywords":116,"overallStatus":38,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":122,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":123,"startDateStruct":124,"completionDateStruct":126,"leadSponsor":128,"locationsCount":78},"100644144","phase-3-continuous-esp-block-in-patients-undergoing-cabg-surgery-100644144","NCT07666178","Continuous ESP Block in Patients Undergoing CABG Surgery.","Continuous Erector Spinea Plane Block in Patients Undergoing Coronary Artery By-pass Graft Surgery.","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Consent to the free and informed consent term.\n* Patient undergoing coronary artery bypass graft surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB).\n* Preserved left ventricular global function (LVEF \\> 50%).\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Moderate or severe valvular dysfunction.\n* Previous anterior sternotomy.\n* Known allergy to the study drugs.\n* Complications during catheter insertion or block placement.\n* Pre-existing diagnosed chronic pain under treatment.\n* Concomitant use of drugs with a long half-life (induction and anesthetic maintenance doses will be standardized; patients taking medications with a long half-life are excluded to prevent bias in outcome assessment).\n* Concomitant administration of Magnesium Sulfate.",{"count":111,"type":22},78,[113],"PHASE3","This study addresses articles and studies related to the erector spinae plane (ESP) block and its technique, advantages and disadvantages, applicability, among others. It aims to provide more information about this block, which is relatively new, and how it can be explored in the anesthesiologist's routine, mainly inserted in the anesthesia scenario for cardiac surgery with a focus on postoperative analgesia.",[29],[117,118,119,120,121],"Spinae erector block","esp block","Analgesia","Continuous analgesia","block","2026-06-18",{"date":69,"type":42},{"date":125,"type":42},"2024-12-12",{"date":127,"type":22},"2027-12-12",{"name":129,"class":49},"Instituto do Coracao",{"id":131,"slug":132,"hasResults":12,"nctId":133,"briefTitle":134,"officialTitle":135,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":136,"healthyVolunteers":12,"sex":17,"minAge":137,"maxAge":138,"enrollmentInfo":139,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":23,"phases":141,"briefSummary":142,"conditions":143,"keywords":4,"overallStatus":38,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":147,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":148,"startDateStruct":150,"completionDateStruct":152,"leadSponsor":154,"locationsCount":78},"100638878","external-oblique-intercostal-plane-block-versus-erector-spinae-plane-block-in-paediatric-upper-abdominal-surgeries-100638878","NCT07617545","External Oblique Intercostal Plane Block Versus Erector Spinae Plane Block in Paediatric Upper Abdominal Surgeries","Ultrasound Guided External Oblique Intercostal Plane Block Versus Erector Spinae Plane Block in Paediatric Upper Abdominal Surgeries","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Children aged between 6 and 12 years of both sex.\n* Patients with the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I\u002FII.\n* Patients undergoing upper abdominal surgeries involving upper abdominal incisions.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Guardian refusal.\n* Allergy to local anesthetics.\n* Surgical procedures exceeding 3 hours.\n* Infection at the area planned for the block injection.\n* Prolonged opioid medication.\n* Patients preoperatively medicated by Beta blockers","6 Years","12 Years",{"count":140,"type":22},40,[25],"This study aims to compare between ultrasound guided external oblique intercostal plane block and ultrasound guided erector spinae plane block in paediatric upper abdominal surgeries.",[144,29,145,146],"External Oblique Intercostal Plane Block","Pediatric","Upper Abdominal Surgeries","2026-05-24",{"date":149,"type":42},"2026-06-01",{"date":151,"type":42},"2025-05-01",{"date":153,"type":22},"2026-10-01",{"name":155,"class":77},"Alexandria University",{"id":157,"slug":158,"hasResults":12,"nctId":159,"briefTitle":160,"officialTitle":160,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":161,"healthyVolunteers":162,"sex":17,"minAge":163,"maxAge":164,"enrollmentInfo":165,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":23,"phases":166,"briefSummary":167,"conditions":168,"keywords":170,"overallStatus":68,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":175,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":176,"startDateStruct":178,"completionDateStruct":180,"leadSponsor":182,"locationsCount":4},"100625769","comparison-of-erector-spinae-plane-block-and-caudal-block-in-pediatric-patients-aged-1-to-8-years-undergoing-lower-abdominal-surgery-100625769","NCT07426939","Comparison of Erector Spinae Plane Block and Caudal Block in Pediatric Patients Aged 1 to 8 Years Undergoing Lower Abdominal Surgery","Inclusion Criteria:\n\nChildren aged 1 to 8 years\n\nScheduled for elective lower abdominal surgery\n\nAmerican Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I-II\n\nWritten informed consent obtained from parent(s) or legal guardian(s)\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\nPresence of anatomical abnormalities\n\nCoagulation disorders\n\nInfection at the site of block application\n\nSevere cardiovascular, neurological, respiratory, or metabolic disease\n\nKnown allergy to study medications\n\nFailed regional block\n\nBilateral surgery or additional surgical procedures involving different surgical sites\n\nRefusal of parent(s) or legal guardian(s) to provide consent",true,"1 Year","8 Years",{"count":111,"type":22},[25],"In routine pediatric surgical practice, lower abdominal surgeries are commonly performed. Inadequate control of postoperative pain can hinder functional recovery and may lead to negative behavioral changes as well as parental dissatisfaction. Regional anesthesia techniques are widely recommended for pain management in pediatric surgery, as they reduce the need for parenteral opioids and improve the effectiveness of postoperative pain control, patient comfort, and parental satisfaction.\n\nVarious nerve block techniques have been developed to enhance postoperative analgesia and facilitate recovery in pediatric patients. However, there is still no consensus regarding the most effective regional anesthesia strategy for pediatric surgical procedures.\n\nAmong regional anesthesia techniques used for pain management in children undergoing lower abdominal surgery, caudal block remains the most commonly applied method. The introduction of real-time ultrasound guidance has improved the reliability and safety of caudal blocks. Nevertheless, a major limitation of this technique is its relatively short duration of action following a single injection, even when long-acting local anesthetics or adjuvant agents are used. Consequently, several fascial plane blocks, such as the quadratus lumborum block, transversus abdominis plane block, and rectus sheath block, have been proposed as alternative approaches for postoperative analgesia in children.\n\nThe erector spinae plane block is a regional anesthesia technique that has been applied at thoracic, lumbar, cervical, and sacral levels for both acute and chronic pain management. By providing blockade of both somatic and visceral pain pathways, it has demonstrated effective postoperative analgesic properties in a variety of thoracic and abdominal surgical procedures. The technique involves the injection of a local anesthetic into the interfascial plane between the erector spinae muscle and the transverse process, allowing longitudinal spread of the anesthetic across multiple spinal levels.\n\nWith a growing body of evidence supporting its feasibility and effectiveness, the erector spinae plane block has gained increasing attention in pediatric anesthesia practice.\n\nThe aim of this study is to evaluate and compare the analgesic efficacy and safety of ultrasound-guided erector spinae plane block and caudal block in pediatric patients undergoing unilateral lower abdominal surgery under general anesthesia. The primary objective is to compare postoperative pain levels between the two techniques using the FLACC score, which assesses facial expression, leg position, activity, crying, and consolability. Secondary objectives include the evaluation of intraoperative heart rate, blood pressure, and oxygen saturation, block application times, parental satisfaction, and the incidence of postoperative side effects.",[169,29,145],"Caudal Epidural Anesthesia",[171,172,173,174],"espb","caudal block","pediatric","erector spinae plane block","2026-05-06",{"date":177,"type":42},"2026-05-11",{"date":179,"type":22},"2026-04-15",{"date":181,"type":22},"2026-09-01",{"name":183,"class":77},"Ankara City Hospital Bilkent",{"id":185,"slug":186,"hasResults":12,"nctId":187,"briefTitle":188,"officialTitle":189,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":190,"healthyVolunteers":162,"sex":17,"minAge":18,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":191,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":23,"phases":193,"briefSummary":194,"conditions":195,"keywords":199,"overallStatus":38,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":202,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":203,"startDateStruct":205,"completionDateStruct":207,"leadSponsor":209,"locationsCount":78},"100634131","ultrasound-guided-erector-spinae-plane-block-versus-thoracoscopically-guided-intercostal-nerve-block-in-video-assisted-thoracoscopic-surgery-100634131","NCT07535697","Ultrasound-Guided Erector Spinae Plane Block Versus Thoracoscopically-Guided Intercostal Nerve Block in Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery","Prospective, Randomized Comparative Study of an Anesthesiological, Ultrasound-Guided \"Erector Spinae Plane Block\" (ESPB) Versus a Surgical, Thoracoscopically-Guided \"Intercostal Nerve Block\" (ICNB) in \"Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic\" (VATS) Procedures, Evaluating Postoperative Analgesic Consumption, Postoperative Pain Perception, and Duration of the Procedure","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Provision of written informed consent\n* Adults (≥ 18 years of age)\n* Elective video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) for pulmonary resection (e.g., lobectomy, segmentectomy, wedge resection)\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Lack of informed consent\n* Language barrier\n* Pregnancy or breastfeeding\n* Known allergy to local anesthetics used in the study\n* Infection at the injection site(s)\n* History of complex chest wall surgery\n* Revision surgery with a prior operation within the last 6 months\n* Intraoperative conversion to open thoracotomy\n* Chronic pain syndrome\n* Fibromyalgia\n* Chronic opioid use\n* Chronic alcohol abuse\n* Chronic substance abuse (e.g., THC, amphetamines, cocaine)\n* History of psychiatric disorders (e.g., depression, schizophrenia)\n* Impaired consciousness, cognition, or ability to communicate\n* Known coagulopathy (including platelet count \\\u003C 80,000\u002FµL or prolonged PTT\u002FaPTT \\>1.5× the upper limit of normal)\n* Ongoing therapeutic anticoagulation",{"count":192,"type":22},72,[25],"Effective postoperative pain management is essential after thoracic surgery. Insufficient pain control may impair breathing and coughing, increasing the risk of pulmonary complications such as collapsed lungs (atelectasis) or pneumonia.\n\nAlthough minimally invasive lung surgery (video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery, VATS) is less painful than open surgery, people can still have significant pain after the operation.\n\nThe goal of this randomized comparative study is to compare two commonly used regional anesthesia techniques for pain control after VATS in adults.\n\nResearchers will compare an ultrasound-guided erector spinae plane block (ESPB), performed by anesthesiologists, to a thoracoscopically-guided intercostal nerve block (ICNB), performed by surgeons.\n\nParticipants will:\n\n* Undergo elective VATS lung resection surgery\n* Receive either ESPB or ICNB, according to random assignment\n* Have the received amount of analgesics recorded during the first 24 hours\n* Have their pain levels assessed at predefined time points after surgery\n\nThe main questions this study aims to answer are:\n\n* Does ESPB result in similar analgesic consumption in the first 24 hours after surgery?\n* Does ESPB provide similar postoperative pain relief compared to ICNB?\n* Is the time needed to perform ESPB similar to ICNB?",[196,197,29,198],"Regional Anesthesia","Video-assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery (VATS)","Intercostal Nerve Block",[196,197,29,200,198,201],"ESPB","ICNB","2026-04-27",{"date":204,"type":42},"2026-05-01",{"date":206,"type":22},"2026-05-04",{"date":208,"type":22},"2027-05-03",{"name":210,"class":77},"Sana Klinikum Offenbach",{"id":212,"slug":213,"hasResults":12,"nctId":214,"briefTitle":215,"officialTitle":216,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":217,"healthyVolunteers":12,"sex":17,"minAge":18,"maxAge":218,"enrollmentInfo":219,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":23,"phases":221,"briefSummary":222,"conditions":223,"keywords":225,"overallStatus":38,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":229,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":230,"startDateStruct":231,"completionDateStruct":233,"leadSponsor":235,"locationsCount":78},"100636021","efficacy-of-ultrasound-guided-erector-spinae-block-for-postoperative-pain-management-in-nephrectomy-100636021","NCT07560267","Efficacy of Ultrasound-Guided Erector Spinae Block for Postoperative Pain Management in Nephrectomy","Efficacy of Ultrasound-Guided Erector Spinae Plane Block in Postoperative Pain Management in Nephrectomy: A Randomized Controlled Trial","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Adult patients aged 18 to 64 years\n* Scheduled for open nephrectomy (radical or partial) under general anesthesia\n* ASA physical status I-II (American Society of Anesthesiologists classification)\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Allergy to local anesthetics.\n* Local infection or inflammation at the site of the Block placement.\n* Presence of anatomical deformities in the spine\n* Coagulopathy or any bleeding disorder.\n* Pregnancy or breastfeeding women.\n* History of severe chronic pain syndrome","64 Years",{"count":220,"type":22},66,[25],"This clinical trial aims to evaluate the effectiveness of the ultrasound-guided erector spinae plane (ESP) block in managing postoperative pain for patients undergoing open nephrectomy (kidney removal surgery). The study will compare this new technique to traditional pain management methods, such as opioid medications, to assess whether the ESP block reduces pain and the need for opioids after surgery.\n\nPatients will be randomly assigned to one of two groups:\n\nGroup C will receive conventional pain relief methods, including opioids. Group E will receive the ultrasound-guided ESP block in addition to general anesthesia.\n\nThe main goals are to determine:\n\nHow much pain relief each method provides, measured using a visual analog scale (VAS).\n\nThe total amount of opioids required during the first 24 hours post-surgery.\n\nAdditional measurements will include monitoring vital signs like heart rate, blood pressure, and oxygen levels.\n\nThis study will help find safer and more effective ways to manage pain after nephrectomy, reducing the reliance on opioids and improving patient recovery",[29,224,37],"Nephrectomy",[226,227,228,224],"Erector Spinae Plane Block (ESP)","Postoperative Pain Management","Opioid Consumption","2026-04-24",{"date":204,"type":42},{"date":232,"type":42},"2025-09-01",{"date":234,"type":22},"2026-07-30",{"name":236,"class":77},"Bangladesh Medical University",{"id":238,"slug":239,"hasResults":12,"nctId":240,"briefTitle":241,"officialTitle":242,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":243,"healthyVolunteers":12,"sex":17,"minAge":18,"maxAge":19,"enrollmentInfo":244,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":23,"phases":245,"briefSummary":246,"conditions":247,"keywords":4,"overallStatus":68,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":249,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":250,"startDateStruct":252,"completionDateStruct":254,"leadSponsor":256,"locationsCount":4},"100633945","erector-spinae-plane-block-versus-external-oblique-intercostal-plane-block-for-analgesia-in-open-cholecystectomy-100633945","NCT07533279","Erector Spinae Plane Block Versus External Oblique Intercostal Plane Block for Analgesia in Open Cholecystectomy","Efficacy of Bilateral Erector Spinae Plane Block Versus Bilateral External Oblique Intercostal Plane Block for Perioperative Analgesia in Open Cholecystectomy Surgeries: A Randomized Controlled Trial","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Adult patients aged 18-65 years.\n* Patients scheduled for elective open cholecystectomy.\n* American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I-II.\n* Patients who provide informed consent.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Patient refusal.\n* Known allergy to local anesthetics.\n* Coagulopathy or anticoagulant therapy.\n* Infection at the site of injection.\n* Severe hepatic, renal, or cardiac disease.\n* Body mass index (BMI) \\> 35 kg\u002Fm².\n* Pregnancy.",{"count":220,"type":22},[25],"This randomized controlled trial aims to compare the analgesic efficacy of bilateral ultrasound-guided erector spinae plane block (ESPB) versus bilateral external oblique intercostal plane (EOI) block in patients undergoing open cholecystectomy.\n\nPatients will be randomly allocated into two groups to receive either ESPB or EOI block in addition to standard general anesthesia. The primary outcome is postoperative pain score assessed using the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) at 2 hours after surgery. Secondary outcomes include intraoperative opioid consumption, postoperative nalbuphine requirements, time to first analgesic request, and hemodynamic changes.\n\nThis study seeks to determine the more effective regional anesthesia technique for improving perioperative analgesia in open cholecystectomy.",[248,37,29,196],"Cholecystectomy","2026-04-09",{"date":251,"type":42},"2026-04-16",{"date":253,"type":22},"2026-06",{"date":255,"type":22},"2027-05",{"name":257,"class":77},"Sohag University",{"id":259,"slug":260,"hasResults":12,"nctId":261,"briefTitle":262,"officialTitle":263,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":264,"healthyVolunteers":12,"sex":17,"minAge":18,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":265,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":23,"phases":267,"briefSummary":268,"conditions":269,"keywords":272,"overallStatus":68,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":274,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":275,"startDateStruct":277,"completionDateStruct":278,"leadSponsor":280,"locationsCount":78},"100631747","comparison-of-intertransverse-process-and-erector-spinae-plane-blocks-in-acute-postoperative-analgesia-management-for-laparoscopic-cholecystectomy-patients-100631747","NCT07504705","Comparison of Intertransverse Process and Erector Spinae Plane Blocks in Acute Postoperative Analgesia Management for Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy Patients","Comparison of Intertransverse Process and Erector Spinae Plane Blocks in Acute Postoperative Analgesia Management for Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy Patients: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy\n* Body mass index (BMI) between 18 and 35 kg\u002Fm²\n* American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status score of I-III\n* Ability to provide written and verbal informed consent\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Coagulopathy or use of anticoagulant medications\n* Infection at the injection site\n* Allergy to local anesthetics\n* Pregnancy or breastfeeding\n* Chronic opioid use or analgesic dependence\n* Severe cardiopulmonary disease or psychiatric disorders\n* Previous regional block performed within the last 24 hours\n* Patients requiring emergency surgery\n* Cases converted from laparoscopic surgery to open surgery",{"count":266,"type":22},110,[25],"Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is considered the gold standard for the surgical treatment of benign gallbladder diseases; however, despite its minimally invasive nature, a significant proportion of patients experience substantial early postoperative pain, which impacts patient comfort and the duration of hospital stay. The current PROSPECT review and previous studies emphasize that this pain is multifactorial-comprising somatic, visceral, and phrenic nerve-mediated shoulder-tip components-and therefore advocate for an opioid-sparing multimodal analgesic approach. Within this framework, first-line recommendations include paracetamol, NSAIDs\u002FCOX-2 inhibitors, dexamethasone, and local anesthetic infiltration of the surgical site and\u002For intraperitoneal cavity, alongside appropriate regional blocks; opioids should be reserved solely for rescue analgesia.\n\nUltrasound-guided regional anesthesia blocks are increasingly utilized for acute visceral pain conditions, such as renal colic. The Erector Spinae Plane Block (ESPB) is an interfacial block performed in the thoracic paraspinal region, and it is hypothesized that its extensive spread may influence somatic and, to some extent, visceral pain pathways. Nevertheless, anatomical and clinical studies report inconsistent effects of ESPB on visceral pain, noting that local anesthetics may not consistently reach the paravertebral space, thereby leading to variable block efficacy.\n\nConsequently, the Intertransverse Process Block (ITPB), which targets a plane anatomically closer to the paravertebral space, has been described in recent years as an alternative technique. ITPB is performed by injecting local anesthetic into the interfacial space adjacent to the retro-superior costotransverse ligament; it is reported to carry a low risk of complications as it does not require direct orientation toward the pleura or neuraxial structures. Clinical trials indicate that ITPB provides analgesic efficacy comparable to paravertebral blocks in both thoracic and abdominal surgeries and reduces opioid consumption. Furthermore, anatomical studies suggest that the probability of local anesthetic spread into the paravertebral space is higher with ITPB than with ESPB.\n\nHowever, a randomized controlled trial comparing ESPB and ITPB in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy is currently lacking in the literature. Therefore, the present study was designed to address this gap.",[270,29,271],"Acut Postoperative Pain","Intertransverse Process Block",[273,29,271,37],"Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy","2026-04-08",{"date":276,"type":42},"2026-04-13",{"date":204,"type":22},{"date":279,"type":22},"2027-05-25",{"name":281,"class":77},"Konya City Hospital",{"id":283,"slug":284,"hasResults":12,"nctId":285,"briefTitle":286,"officialTitle":287,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":288,"healthyVolunteers":12,"sex":17,"minAge":289,"maxAge":19,"enrollmentInfo":290,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":23,"phases":291,"briefSummary":292,"conditions":293,"keywords":298,"overallStatus":38,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":303,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":304,"startDateStruct":306,"completionDateStruct":308,"leadSponsor":310,"locationsCount":78},"100582981","erector-spinae-block-versus-combined-pecto-intercostal-and-recto-intercostal-fascial-plane-block-in-cardiac-surgery-100582981","NCT06870383","Erector Spinae Block Versus Combined Pecto-intercostal and Recto-intercostal Fascial Plane Block in Cardiac Surgery","Analgesic Efficacy of Erector Spinae Plane Block Versus Combined Pecto-intercostal and Recto-intercostal Fascial Plane Block in Patients Undergoing Cardiac Surgery: A Randomized Comparative Trial","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Age from 21 to 65 years.\n* Both sexes.\n* Scheduled for open heart surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass and midline sternotomy.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* History of chronic pain or Long-term or recent use of opioids.\n* History of allergy to local anesthetic drugs.\n* Ejection fraction of left ventricle less than 30%.\n* History of psychiatric diseases or any neurological disorders.\n* Pre-existing major organ dysfunction as hepatic or renal failure.","21 Years",{"count":220,"type":22},[25],"The aim of this study is to compare the analgesic effects of ultrasound-guided bilateral erector spinae plane block versus ultrasound-guided bilateral combined Pecto-intercostal fascial plane block and recto-intercostal fascial plane block in patients undergoing cardiac surgery.",[29,294,295,296,297],"Pecto-intercostal Fascial Plane Block","Recto-intercostal Fascial Plane Block","Cardiac","Surgery",[299,300,301,302,296],"Analgesic","Erector","Pectointercostal","Rectointercostal","2026-03-14",{"date":305,"type":42},"2026-03-17",{"date":307,"type":42},"2025-03-20",{"date":309,"type":22},"2026-12-20",{"name":102,"class":77},{"id":312,"slug":313,"hasResults":12,"nctId":314,"briefTitle":315,"officialTitle":316,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":317,"healthyVolunteers":12,"sex":17,"minAge":18,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":318,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":23,"phases":320,"briefSummary":321,"conditions":322,"keywords":324,"overallStatus":68,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":329,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":330,"startDateStruct":332,"completionDateStruct":334,"leadSponsor":336,"locationsCount":78},"100623432","intermittent-erector-spinae-plane-block-via-subcutaneous-port-for-cancer-pain-100623432","NCT07396558","Intermittent Erector Spinae Plane Block Via Subcutaneous Port for Cancer Pain","Efficacy of Intermittent Erector Spinae Plane Block Via Subcutaneous Port for Cancer-Related Pain in Patients With Lung Cancer","Inclusion Criteria\n\n* Adult patients diagnosed with advanced-stage lung cancer who are currently receiving palliative care only.\n* Presence of chronic cancer-related chest pain lasting longer than 1 month, localized to the thoracic region due to chest wall invasion, pleural involvement, or bone metastases.\n* Performance status ≤ 3 according to the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG), allowing placement of a subcutaneous port and maintenance of local anesthetic administration.\n* Inadequate pain control with conventional analgesic therapies or clinical indication for the addition of regional analgesia.\n* Ability to understand the study procedures and provide written informed consent after receiving a full explanation of the intervention.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Chest pain with radiation to the upper extremities, neck, or shoulder, suggestive of non-localized thoracic pain.\n* Severe hepatic or renal dysfunction, or severe heart failure (New York Heart Association class III-IV).\n* Local infection at the injection or port placement site, or uncontrolled systemic infection.\n* Severe cachexia or insufficient subcutaneous tissue that does not allow safe coverage of the subcutaneous port.\n* Known allergy to amide-type local anesthetics or other contraindications to regional anesthesia.\n* Severe cognitive impairment, altered consciousness, or inability to cooperate with post-intervention monitoring.\n* Lack of adequate caregiver support for home-based follow-up after discharge or inability to coordinate follow-up with local healthcare facilities.\n* Severe coagulation disorders, defined as:\n\n  * International normalized ratio (INR) \\> 1.5\n  * Activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) \\> 40 seconds\n  * Fibrinogen \\\u003C 1.5 g\u002FL\n  * Platelet count \\\u003C 50 × 10⁹\u002FL.",{"count":319,"type":22},180,[25],"Cancer-related pain is a common and challenging problem in patients with lung cancer, often requiring long-term pain management. Conventional pain treatments, including systemic medications, may not provide adequate relief or may cause significant side effects.\n\nThe erector spinae plane (ESP) block is a regional anesthesia technique that can help reduce pain by delivering local anesthetic near the nerves supplying the chest wall. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of intermittent ESP block administered through a subcutaneous port for controlling cancer-related pain in patients with lung cancer.\n\nEligible patients with lung cancer and moderate to severe pain will receive intermittent ESP block injections via a subcutaneous port as part of their pain management plan. Pain intensity, analgesic requirements, and potential side effects will be assessed over time.\n\nThe results of this study may help determine whether intermittent ESP block via a subcutaneous port is a useful and feasible option for improving pain control and quality of life in patients with lung cancer.",[323,29],"Cancer Pain",[29,196,325,326,327,328],"Cancer-Related Pain","Lung Cancer","Subcutaneous Port","Palliative Care","2026-02-01",{"date":331,"type":42},"2026-02-09",{"date":333,"type":22},"2026-03-01",{"date":335,"type":22},"2027-12-31",{"name":337,"class":77},"Hanoi Medical University",{"id":339,"slug":340,"hasResults":12,"nctId":341,"briefTitle":342,"officialTitle":343,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":344,"healthyVolunteers":12,"sex":345,"minAge":18,"maxAge":19,"enrollmentInfo":346,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":23,"phases":347,"briefSummary":348,"conditions":349,"keywords":4,"overallStatus":38,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":352,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":353,"startDateStruct":355,"completionDateStruct":356,"leadSponsor":357,"locationsCount":78},"100621203","costotransverse-foramen-block-with-erector-spinae-plane-block-in-modified-radical-mastectomy-100621203","NCT07367568","Costotransverse Foramen Block With Erector Spinae Plane Block in Modified Radical Mastectomy","Comparison of Costotransverse Foramen Block With Erector Spinae Plane Block in Modified Radical Mastectomy: A Randomized Controlled Trial","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Adult females \\> 18 years and ≤ 65 years old.\n* American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status П-III.\n* Body mass index (BMI) 18-35 kg\u002Fm2.\n* Scheduled for modified radical mastectomy.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Known allergy or hypersensitivity to local anesthetic agents.\n* Active infection at the injection site (e.g., cellulitis, abscess).\n* Coagulopathy or ongoing anticoagulant\u002Fantiplatelet therapy \\[International Normalized Ratio (INR) \\> 1.5 or platelet count \\\u003C 100,000\u002FµL\\].\n* Severe respiratory, cardiac, hepatic, or renal disease.\n* Morbid obesity.\n* Severe cognitive impairment or uncooperative behavior that could interfere with block placement.","FEMALE",{"count":266,"type":22},[25],"This study aims to compare the costotransverse foramen block with erector spinae plane block in modified radical mastectomy.",[350,29,351],"Costotransverse Foramen Block","Modified Radical Mastectomy","2026-01-24",{"date":354,"type":42},"2026-01-27",{"date":352,"type":42},{"date":149,"type":22},{"name":358,"class":77},"National Cancer Institute, Egypt",{"id":360,"slug":361,"hasResults":12,"nctId":362,"briefTitle":363,"officialTitle":364,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":365,"healthyVolunteers":12,"sex":17,"minAge":18,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":366,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":23,"phases":368,"briefSummary":369,"conditions":370,"keywords":4,"overallStatus":38,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":372,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":373,"startDateStruct":375,"completionDateStruct":376,"leadSponsor":378,"locationsCount":78},"100613898","erector-spinae-plane-block-on-postoperative-analgesia-in-patients-undergoing-laparoscopic-abdominal-surgeries-100613898","NCT07272577","Erector Spinae Plane Block on Postoperative Analgesia in Patients Undergoing Laparoscopic Abdominal Surgeries","Efficacy of Erector Spinae Plane Block on Postoperative Analgesia in Patients Undergoing Laparoscopic Abdominal Surgeries","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Age ≥ 18 years.\n* Both sexes.\n* American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I-II.\n* Body mass index (BMI) between 20-30 kg\u002Fm2.\n* Patients undergoing laparoscopic abdominal surgeries under general anesthesia.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Bleeding or coagulation disorders.\n* Having local sepsis, pre-existing.\n* Peripheral neuropathies.\n* Chronic pain conditions.\n* Having any contraindication to regional anesthesia administration.\n* Opioid dependency.\n* Hypertension.\n* Uncontrolled diabetes mellitus.",{"count":367,"type":22},50,[25],"This study aims to evaluate the efficacy of the erector spinae plane block (ESPB) on postoperative analgesia in patients undergoing laparoscopic abdominal surgeries.",[29,65,371],"Laparoscopic Abdominal Surgeries","2025-12-10",{"date":374,"type":42},"2025-12-11",{"date":372,"type":42},{"date":377,"type":22},"2026-04-01",{"name":379,"class":77},"Assiut University",{"id":381,"slug":382,"hasResults":12,"nctId":383,"briefTitle":384,"officialTitle":385,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":386,"healthyVolunteers":12,"sex":387,"minAge":163,"maxAge":388,"enrollmentInfo":389,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":23,"phases":391,"briefSummary":392,"conditions":393,"keywords":397,"overallStatus":38,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":402,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":403,"startDateStruct":405,"completionDateStruct":407,"leadSponsor":409,"locationsCount":78},"100600597","ultrasound-guided-sacral-erector-spinae-plane-block-versus-ultrasound-guided-caudal-block-in-pediatric-undergoing-hypospadias-surgery-100600597","NCT07099560","Ultrasound Guided Sacral Erector Spinae Plane Block Versus Ultrasound Guided Caudal Block in Pediatric Undergoing Hypospadias Surgery","Comparison of Preemptive Analgesic Effect of Ultrasound Guided Sacral Erector Spinae Plane Block Versus Ultrasound Guided Caudal Block in Pediatric Undergoing Hypospadias Surgery","Inclusion Criteria\n\n* Male children aged 1-5 years\n* ASA physical status I-II\n* Scheduled for elective hypospadias repair under general anesthesia\n* Parent or legal guardian provides written informed consent\n* Able to complete postoperative assessments through 24 hours after surgery Exclusion Criteria\n* Parent\u002Fguardian refusal of participation\n* Coagulopathy or current anticoagulant therapy\n* Infection at the intended injection site (sacral\u002Fcaudal region) or systemic infection\n* Allergy\u002Fhypersensitivity to amide local anesthetics (e.g., bupivacaine) or study medications\n* Neurologic or spinal disorders or congenital sacral anomalies affecting block safety\n* Significant hepatic, renal, or cardiac disease\n* Any other condition that, in the investigator's judgment, contraindicates caudal block or sacral ESPB or could interfere with safe participation","MALE","5 Years",{"count":390,"type":22},70,[25],"Randomized, parallel-group, assessor-blinded clinical trial at Tanta University Hospitals comparing ultrasound-guided sacral erector spinae plane block (sESPB) versus ultrasound-guided caudal epidural block for postoperative analgesia in male children (1-5 years) undergoing hypospadias repair. Seventy participants will be randomized 1:1 to receive sESPB or caudal block with 0.25% bupivacaine (0.5-1 mL\u002Fkg; maximum 20 mL) after induction of general anesthesia. The primary outcome is pain over the first 24 hours, assessed using the FLACC scale at prespecified time points. Secondary outcomes include total opioid consumption, time to first rescue analgesia, postoperative nausea and vomiting, parent\u002Fguardian satisfaction, hemodynamic trends, and predefined adverse effects (e.g., motor weakness, urinary retention, respiratory depression, hematoma, infection at injection site). Perioperative care is standardized; rescue pethidine is administered when FLACC ≥4. The trial evaluates whether sESPB provides superior or comparable analgesia with fewer adverse effects than caudal block.",[394,395,29,396],"Hypospadias","Caudal Block","Pain, Postoperative",[398,399,174,172,400,401],"hypospadias","nerve block","pain","ultra-sound","2025-09-06",{"date":404,"type":42},"2025-09-09",{"date":406,"type":42},"2025-04-01",{"date":408,"type":22},"2026-04",{"name":102,"class":77},{"id":411,"slug":412,"hasResults":12,"nctId":413,"briefTitle":414,"officialTitle":415,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":416,"healthyVolunteers":12,"sex":17,"minAge":417,"maxAge":137,"enrollmentInfo":418,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":420,"phases":4,"briefSummary":421,"conditions":422,"keywords":4,"overallStatus":38,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":428,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":429,"startDateStruct":431,"completionDateStruct":433,"leadSponsor":434,"locationsCount":78},"100605350","infrared-thermography-for-prediction-of-successful-erector-spinae-plane-block-in-unilateral-inguinal-hernia-surgery-in-paediatric-patients-100605350","NCT07161375","Infrared Thermography for Prediction of Successful Erector Spinae Plane Block in Unilateral Inguinal Hernia Surgery in Paediatric Patients","Infrared Thermography for Prediction of Successful Erector Spinae Plane Block in Unilateral Inguinal Hernia Surgery in Paediatric Patients: A Prospective Observational Study","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Age from 3 months to 6 years.\n* Both genders.\n* American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) Physical Status I-II.\n* Children undergoing elective unilateral open inguinal hernia surgery.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Parents' or guardians' refusal\n* Known Allergy to local anesthetics.\n* Coagulopathy \\[international normalised ratio (INR) \\>1.4 or platelets \\\u003C75.000\\].\n* Infection at the site of injection or wound close to the puncture site.\n* preexisting neuropathy (with sensory and\u002For motor deficits).\n* Diseases interfere with thermal imaging (as skin infections).\n* Baseline oesophageal body temperature of more than 37.5 °C.\n* Emergency and re-do cases will be excluded.","3 Months",{"count":419,"type":22},69,"OBSERVATIONAL","This study aims to evaluate the accuracy of temperature change (ΔT) measurements using infrared thermography to predict a successful erector spinae plane block in pediatric patients undergoing inguinal hernia repair under general anesthesia.",[423,424,425,29,426,427],"Infrared","Thermography","Prediction","Unilateral Inguinal Hernia Surgery","Paediatric","2025-08-30",{"date":430,"type":42},"2025-09-08",{"date":432,"type":42},"2024-08-05",{"date":232,"type":22},{"name":435,"class":77},"Cairo University",{"id":437,"slug":438,"hasResults":12,"nctId":439,"briefTitle":440,"officialTitle":441,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":442,"healthyVolunteers":12,"sex":17,"minAge":18,"maxAge":19,"enrollmentInfo":443,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":23,"phases":445,"briefSummary":446,"conditions":447,"keywords":449,"overallStatus":68,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":454,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":455,"startDateStruct":457,"completionDateStruct":459,"leadSponsor":461,"locationsCount":4},"100585288","esp-vs-exora-blocks-for-analgesia-in-laparoscopic-cholecystectomy-100585288","NCT06900413","ESP vs. EXORA Blocks for Analgesia in Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy","Comparison of the Efficacy of Erector Spinae Plane (ESP) and External Oblique and Rectus Abdominis Plane (EXORA) Blocks in Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy","Inclusion Criteria:\n\nAge between 18 and 65 years\n\nUndergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy\n\nClassified as American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I to III\n\nProviding written informed consent\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\nKnown allergy or hypersensitivity to local anesthetics\n\nInfection or skin lesions at the site of block application\n\nEmergency surgical procedures\n\nRefusal to participate in the study\n\nUncontrolled arterial hypertension\n\nUncontrolled diabetes mellitus\n\nMental retardation\n\nCurrent use of antidepressant medications\n\nPresence of metabolic disorders\n\nKnown bleeding diathesis\n\nMorbid obesity (Body Mass Index \\> 40 kg\u002Fm²)",{"count":444,"type":22},56,[25],"Patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy may experience moderate to severe postoperative pain. Effective postoperative analgesia enhances patient comfort and accelerates recovery. This study aims to compare the effects of Erector Spinae Plane (ESP) and External Oblique and Rectus Abdominis Plane (EXORA) blocks on postoperative pain management and analgesic consumption.\n\nThe study is designed as a prospective, randomized, double-blind trial. Patients will be randomly assigned to groups, and both practitioners and evaluators will be blinded to group assignments. Our hypothesis is that the EXORA block will provide superior analgesia and require less analgesic consumption compared to the ESP block. The results will be assessed in terms of postoperative pain management, patient comfort, and additional analgesic requirements.",[29,273,448],"Plane Block",[29,450,451,452,453],"exora block","laparoscopic cholecystectomy","patient-controlled analgesia","plane block","2025-08-26",{"date":456,"type":42},"2025-09-03",{"date":458,"type":22},"2025-09",{"date":460,"type":22},"2026-03",{"name":462,"class":77},"Aycan KURTARANGİL DOĞAN",{"id":464,"slug":465,"hasResults":12,"nctId":466,"briefTitle":467,"officialTitle":468,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":469,"healthyVolunteers":12,"sex":17,"minAge":18,"maxAge":470,"enrollmentInfo":471,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":23,"phases":473,"briefSummary":474,"conditions":475,"keywords":4,"overallStatus":38,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":482,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":483,"startDateStruct":485,"completionDateStruct":487,"leadSponsor":489,"locationsCount":78},"100603669","dexamethasone-versus-magnesium-sulphate-as-an-adjuvant-to-bupivacaine-in-ultrasound-guided-erector-spinae-plane-block-for-postoperative-analgesia-in-elective-caesarean-section-under-spinal-anesthesia-100603669","NCT07139522","Dexamethasone Versus Magnesium Sulphate as an Adjuvant to Bupivacaine in Ultrasound Guided Erector Spinae Plane Block for Postoperative Analgesia in Elective Caesarean Section Under Spinal Anesthesia","The Efficacy of Dexamethasone Versus Magnesium Sulphate as an Adjuvant to Bupivacaine in Ultrasound Guided Erector Spinae Plane Block for Postoperative Analgesia in Elective Caesarean Section Under Spinal Anesthesia: A Randomized Controlled Trial.","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Age from 18 to 35 years.\n* Full-term, singleton, pregnant women.\n* American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status II.\n* Scheduled for elective cesarean delivery under spinal anesthesia.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Refusal of the patient.\n* Emergency caesarean sections.\n* Patients having chronic diseases as asthma, cardiovascular disorders (Significant arrhythmias, Severe Valvular diseases, congenital heart diseases, ischemic heart disease, cardiomyopathy, deep venous thrombosis ,and pulmonary embolism)\n* Renal impairment (Creatinine level ≥ 2mg\u002Fdl, urea ≥ 25mg\u002FdL), liver impairment \\[Alanine aminotransferase (ALT) \\\u003C 45 U\u002FL, Aspartate aminotransferase (AST) \\\u003C 45 U\u002FL\\].\n* Allergy to the drug enrolled in the study.\n* Body mass index (BMI) ≥ 35 kg\u002Fm2.\n* Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy.\n* Contraindication to spinal anesthesia, such as coagulopathy \\[platelet count \\\u003C150.000, international normalized ratio (INR) \\> 1.2\\], or local infection.\n* Requirement for conversion to general anesthesia after spinal anesthesia will also be excluded.","35 Years",{"count":472,"type":22},150,[25],"This study aims to compare the efficacy of adding dexamethasone and magnesium sulfate as an adjuvant to bupivacaine in bilateral erector spinae block in postoperative pain control in patients undergoing caesarean section under spinal anesthesia.",[476,477,478,479,29,65,480,481],"Dexamethasone","Magnesium Sulphate","Adjuvant","Ultrasound","Cesarean Section","Spinal Anesthesia","2025-08-18",{"date":484,"type":42},"2025-08-24",{"date":486,"type":42},"2023-12-01",{"date":488,"type":22},"2025-12-01",{"name":435,"class":77},{"id":491,"slug":492,"hasResults":12,"nctId":493,"briefTitle":494,"officialTitle":495,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":496,"healthyVolunteers":12,"sex":17,"minAge":18,"maxAge":58,"enrollmentInfo":497,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":23,"phases":499,"briefSummary":501,"conditions":502,"keywords":504,"overallStatus":68,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":508,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":509,"startDateStruct":511,"completionDateStruct":513,"leadSponsor":514,"locationsCount":4},"100525917","phase-1-the-relationship-between-nlr-and-ponv-and-espb-100525917","NCT06127966","The Relationship Between NLR and PONV and ESPB","The Relationship Between the Preoperative Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte Ratio (NLR) and Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting (PONV) in Lumbar Spine Surgery Patients, as Well as the Impact of Erector Spinae Plane Block on NLR and PONV","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n1. Patients undergoing elective posterior lumbar spine surgery in a prone position under general anesthesia.\n2. ASA classification grades I to II.\n3. Age between 18 and 80 years old.\n4. Signed the informed consent for this study.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n1. Preoperative blood transfusion.\n2. Uncontrolled systemic diseases.\n3. Patients with known uncontrolled systemic inflammatory diseases (e.g., rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, or active infections).\n4. Gastrointestinal system disorders.\n5. History of antiemetic and anticholinergic drug use.\n6. History of adverse reactions related to surgery, deformity correction surgeries, defined as procedures involving instrumentation across three or more levels or aimed at correcting scoliosis or kyphosis.\n7. Severe spinal deformities.\n8. Infection at the puncture site.\n9. Coagulation disorders.\n10. Long-term use of sedatives and analgesic drugs before surgery.\n11. Patients with mental illness or communication barriers.\n12. Allergic to ropivacaine.\n13. Participants involved in other clinical studies within the past 3 months.\n14. History of previous lumbar surgeries.\n15. Subjective unwillingness to participate in this study.",{"count":498,"type":22},220,[500],"PHASE1","This study aims to investigate whether preoperative NLR (Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte Ratio) serves as a biomarker for PONV (Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting). It also examines the impact of erector spinae plane block on NLR and PONV. Furthermore, the research explores the effect of erector spinae plane block on postoperative pain relief in spinal surgery and its influence on the usage of opioid medications.",[29,503],"Neutrophil to Lymphocyte Ratio",[503,505,174,506,507],"Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting","Postoperative analgesia","lumbosacral spine surgery","2025-07-24",{"date":510,"type":42},"2025-07-29",{"date":512,"type":22},"2025-08-01",{"date":181,"type":22},{"name":515,"class":77},"Qianfoshan Hospital",{"id":517,"slug":518,"hasResults":12,"nctId":519,"briefTitle":520,"officialTitle":521,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":522,"healthyVolunteers":12,"sex":17,"minAge":18,"maxAge":58,"enrollmentInfo":523,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":23,"phases":525,"briefSummary":526,"conditions":527,"keywords":528,"overallStatus":38,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":533,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":534,"startDateStruct":536,"completionDateStruct":538,"leadSponsor":540,"locationsCount":78},"100549977","patients-positions-on-analgesic-efficacy-of-espb-100549977","NCT06441071","Patients' Positions on Analgesic Efficacy of ESPB","Effect of Different Patient's Positions on Postoperative Analgesia of Ultrasound-guided Erector Spinae Plane Block","Inclusion Criteria:\n\nPatients undergoing Video-assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery under elective general anaesthesia were selected, regardless of sex, age 18-80 years, BMI: 18-30 kg.m-2, ASA classification I-III.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n1. Allergy to the study drug or allergy to local anaesthetics;\n2. History of opioid abuse;\n3. Previous nerve block puncture with puncture site infection；\n4. Peripheral neuropathy；\n5. Coagulation abnormalities, defined as prothrombin time or partial activation time prothrombin time exceeding standard values or international normalised ratio (INR) ≥ 1.4, or platelet count ≤ 70 x 109 L-1.",{"count":524,"type":22},200,[25],"The goal of this clinical trial is to learn if patients remaining different positions for 30min after receiving ultrasound-guided erector spinae plane block influenced the postoperative analgesia. The main questions it aims to answer are:\n\nDoes patients maintain prone position or lateral position for 30 min after ESPB provided superior analgesic effect than in the supine position? Is ESPB not inferior to PVB considering postoperative opioid consumption ? Researchers will compare the opioid consumption 24h postoperatively among the patients remaining supine, lateral, prone position after ESPB and PVB to see if patients maintaining lateral or prone position provided excellent postoperative analgesia.\n\nParticipants will:\n\nMaintaining supine lateral or prone position for 30 min following ESPB or receiving PVB.\n\nReceiving postoperative NRS and QoR assessment",[29],[529,530,531,532],"Paravertebral thoracic block","Clinical application","Perioperative analgesia","Erector spinae plane block","2025-07-17",{"date":535,"type":42},"2025-07-21",{"date":537,"type":42},"2024-06-14",{"date":539,"type":22},"2026-12-01",{"name":541,"class":77},"Nanjing First Hospital, Nanjing Medical University",{"id":543,"slug":544,"hasResults":12,"nctId":545,"briefTitle":546,"officialTitle":546,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":547,"healthyVolunteers":162,"sex":17,"minAge":4,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":548,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":420,"phases":4,"briefSummary":549,"conditions":550,"keywords":4,"overallStatus":38,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":553,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":554,"startDateStruct":556,"completionDateStruct":558,"leadSponsor":560,"locationsCount":78},"100581046","comparison-of-the-efficacy-of-transversus-abdominis-plane-block-and-erector-spinae-plane-block-in-postoperative-analgesia-management-after-abdominoplasty-100581046","NCT06845215","Comparison of the Efficacy of Transversus Abdominis Plane Block and Erector Spinae Plane Block in Postoperative Analgesia Management After Abdominoplasty","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Patients who underwent abdominoplasty and received TAP or ESP blocks for postoperative analgesia, followed by monitoring with IV PCA.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Cases in which IV PCA was not used, VAS scoring was unavailable, or complications occurred.",{"count":21,"type":22},"Introduction: Abdominoplasty involves the removal of excess skin and fat from the abdominal region, rectus sheath plication, and umbilical transposition. The number of cosmetic abdominoplasty procedures has been steadily increasing in recent years. Due to extensive tissue manipulation and large incisions during surgery, postoperative pain has become a significant concern. Studies report that up to 80% of patients experience postoperative pain; however, fewer than half of these patients receive adequate analgesia. Improving postoperative pain control has been shown to facilitate early mobilization, reduce hospital length of stay, lower healthcare costs, and enhance patient satisfaction. Therefore, ensuring effective postoperative analgesia has become a critical aspect of patient management.\n\nTransversus abdominis plane (TAP) block and erector spinae plane (ESP) block are peripheral nerve block techniques that can be used as part of a multimodal analgesia approach for postoperative pain management after abdominoplasty. In this study, we aimed to compare the effects of TAP and ESP blocks on postoperative pain in patients undergoing abdominoplasty.\n\nAim\u002FHypothesis:\n\nH0: There is a significant difference in the analgesic efficacy between ultrasound-guided ESP and TAP blocks in postoperative pain management after abdominoplasty.\n\nH1: There is not a significant difference in the analgesic efficacy between ultrasound-guided ESP and TAP blocks in postoperative pain management after abdominoplasty.\n\nMaterials and Methods: Our study was designed as a retrospective analysis. Patient records and hospital database will be reviewed to identify all patients who underwent abdominoplasty and received TAP block or ESP block for postoperative analgesia. Demographic data including age, gender, weight, height, body mass index (BMI) and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification, as well as comorbidities and medications used will be recorded on case report forms. The type of block performed (TAP or ESP) and postoperative pain scores obtained from pain assessment forms using the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) at 0, 2, 4, 6, 12 and 24 hours postoperatively will be documented. In addition, data from the patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) device will be recorded, including number of doses demanded (DEM) and number of doses delivered (DEL). Other parameters such as additional analgesic requirements, postoperative nausea and vomiting, itching and patient satisfaction will also be recorded.",[551,37,552,29],"Abdominoplasty","Transversus Abdominis Plane (TAP) Block","2025-06-12",{"date":555,"type":42},"2025-06-15",{"date":557,"type":42},"2025-02-20",{"date":559,"type":22},"2025-07-20",{"name":561,"class":49},"Ankara Ataturk Sanatorium Training and Research Hospital",{"id":563,"slug":564,"hasResults":12,"nctId":565,"briefTitle":566,"officialTitle":567,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":568,"healthyVolunteers":12,"sex":17,"minAge":18,"maxAge":569,"enrollmentInfo":570,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":23,"phases":571,"briefSummary":572,"conditions":573,"keywords":4,"overallStatus":38,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":578,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":579,"startDateStruct":581,"completionDateStruct":582,"leadSponsor":584,"locationsCount":78},"100592974","the-effectiveness-of-ultra-sound-guided-erector-spinae-block-with-betamethasone-for-management-of-truncal-chronic-post-herpetic-neuralgia-100592974","NCT07000409","The Effectiveness of Ultra-Sound Guided Erector Spinae Block With Betamethasone for Management of Truncal Chronic Post Herpetic Neuralgia.","The Effectiveness of Ultra-Sound Guided Erector Spinae Block With Betamethasone for Management of Truncal Chronic Post Herpetic Neuralgia, a Prospective Randomized Controlled Study.","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Patients age between 18 and 75.\n* Patients with American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) II and III status.\n* Patients diagnosed with truncal chronic post herpetic neuralgia( neuropathic pain persistent for more than 3 months from the onset of rash appearance )\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Patients unable to comprehend the informed consent.\n* Patients on long term opioid regimens.\n* Patients with impairment in hepatic (Alanine aminotransferase (ALT) \\>50 U\u002FL, and\u002For Aspartate aminotransferase (AST): \\>45 U\u002FL) or renal functions( creatinine level ≥1.5 mg\u002FdL)\n* Patients on anti-coagulation regimens.\n* Patients with coagulation abnormalities (i.e. international normalized ratio (INR) ≥1.5 and\u002For platelets ≤50000)\n* Local infection in the site of the block.\n* Patients with body mass index (BMI) \\> 35.","75 Years",{"count":140,"type":22},[25],"To investigate the effectiveness of ultra-Sound guided Erector spinae block (ESB) with Betamethasone as an adjuvant to standard medical protocol in the management of truncal chronic post herpetic neuralgia.",[574,575,576,29,577],"Postherpetic Neuralgia","Chronic Pain","Ultrasound Guidance","Betamethasone","2025-06-02",{"date":580,"type":42},"2025-06-05",{"date":151,"type":42},{"date":583,"type":22},"2025-12-30",{"name":435,"class":77},{"id":586,"slug":587,"hasResults":12,"nctId":588,"briefTitle":589,"officialTitle":590,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":591,"healthyVolunteers":12,"sex":17,"minAge":18,"maxAge":58,"enrollmentInfo":592,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":23,"phases":594,"briefSummary":595,"conditions":596,"keywords":4,"overallStatus":38,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":597,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":598,"startDateStruct":600,"completionDateStruct":602,"leadSponsor":604,"locationsCount":78},"100588093","different-injection-speed-on-local-anaesthetic-spread-of-espb-100588093","NCT06936904","Different Injection Speed on Local Anaesthetic Spread of ESPB","Impact of Different Injection Rate on Local Anaesthetic Spread of Ultrasound-guided Erector Spinae Plane Block","Inclusion Criteria:\n\nPatients scheduled for CT-guided lung nodule localization under local anesthesia will be selected\n\n1. aged 18-80 years\n2. BMI 18-30 kg\u002Fm²\n3. ASA classification I-III\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n1. Allergy to the study drug or to local anesthetics\n2. History of opioid abuse\n3. Previous infection at the ESPB or PVB puncture site\n4. Peripheral neuropathy\n5. Dysfunction of blood coagulation",{"count":593,"type":22},74,[25],"The aim of this clinical trial is to investigate the effect of different injection speeds on the spread of local anesthetic during ultrasound-guided erector spinae plane block (ESPB) in patients undergoing CT-guided lung nodule localization. The primary question addressed is whether a high injection speed (30 ml delivered within 30 seconds) produces a different local anesthetic distribution compared with a lower injection speed (30 ml delivered within 180 seconds).",[29],"2025-05-19",{"date":599,"type":42},"2025-05-22",{"date":601,"type":42},"2025-04-21",{"date":603,"type":22},"2027-03-01",{"name":541,"class":77},{"id":606,"slug":607,"hasResults":12,"nctId":608,"briefTitle":609,"officialTitle":610,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":611,"healthyVolunteers":12,"sex":17,"minAge":612,"maxAge":58,"enrollmentInfo":613,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":23,"phases":614,"briefSummary":616,"conditions":617,"keywords":4,"overallStatus":68,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":620,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":621,"startDateStruct":623,"completionDateStruct":625,"leadSponsor":627,"locationsCount":4},"100591555","phase-4-addition-of-dexmedetomidine-to-ropivacaine-in-bilateral-erector-spinae-plane-block-in-patients-undergoing-coronary-artery-bypass-surgery-100591555","NCT06981949","Addition of Dexmedetomidine to Ropivacaine in Bilateral Erector Spinae Plane Block in Patients Undergoing Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery","The Addition of Dexmedetomidine to Ropivacaine in Bilateral Erector Spinae Plane Block in Patients Undergoing Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery - A Double-blinded Randomized Clinical Trial","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n1. Age range: 25 - 80 years old\n2. Planned for elective OFF PUMP CABG\n3. Cognitively not impaired\n4. American Society of Anesthesiologists class 3\n5. Left ventricular ejection fraction ≥40%\n6. Consent form for the study signed\n7. No infection at the site of injection\n8. No contraindication for ESP block (thrombocytopenia, anticoagulation therapy)\n9. No documented allergy to ropivacaine or dexmedetomidine\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n1. Refusal to participate in the study\n2. Emergency surgery\n3. American Society of Anesthesiologists class \\>3\n4. Left ventricular ejection fraction \\\u003C40%\n5. Infection at the site of injection for ultrasound-guided ESPB\n6. Coagulation disorders\n7. Documented allergy to ropivacaine or dexmedetomidine\n8. Greater than first-degree heart block\n9. Bradycardia (heart rate \\[HR\\] \\\u003C 50 bpm)\n10. Pregnancy\n11. BMI ≥40\n12. Psychiatric illnesses that would interfere with the assessment of pain scores\n13. History of alcohol or drug abuse and chronic analgesic use","25 Years",{"count":266,"type":22},[615],"PHASE4","Coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG), typically performed through a median sternotomy, causes significant postoperative pain. Managing this pain effectively while reducing reliance on opioids is essential, as opioids can lead to side effects such as respiratory depression, nausea, and potential for dependence. Regional anesthesia techniques like the erector spinae plane block (ESPB) have emerged as promising tools to control pain and support recovery.\n\nThis randomized, double-blind clinical trial evaluates whether adding dexmedetomidine, a sedative and analgesic, to ropivacaine, a local anesthetic, in bilateral ESPB can improve pain control after off-pump CABG surgery. The study is conducted at the Lebanese American University Medical Center - Rizk Hospital.\n\nA total of 110 adult patients undergoing elective surgery are randomly assigned to one of two groups:\n\n1. Group R: Receives ropivacaine alone in the ESPB.\n2. Group RD: Receives ropivacaine with dexmedetomidine.\n\nThe nerve block is administered before anesthesia. The primary outcome is the duration of effective pain relief (pain score ≤4) before the patient needs opioid medication, assessed up to 24 hours after extubation.\n\nSecondary outcomes include:\n\n1. Pain scores monitored for up to 48 hours post-extubation\n2. Total intraoperative opioid use\n3. Time to extubation, ambulation, and incentive spirometry use\n4. ICU stay duration\n5. Side effects such as nausea, bradycardia, or local anesthetic toxicity\n\nThis study supports efforts to reduce opioid use after heart surgery while maintaining effective pain management, aligning with enhanced recovery protocols and addressing the broader public health challenge of opioid overuse.",[618,619,29],"Pain","Pain Management Following Cardiopulmonary Bypass Surgery","2025-05-17",{"date":622,"type":42},"2025-05-21",{"date":624,"type":22},"2025-05-15",{"date":626,"type":22},"2026-05-16",{"name":628,"class":77},"Lebanese American University",{"id":630,"slug":631,"hasResults":12,"nctId":632,"briefTitle":633,"officialTitle":634,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":635,"healthyVolunteers":12,"sex":17,"minAge":137,"maxAge":636,"enrollmentInfo":637,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":23,"phases":638,"briefSummary":639,"conditions":640,"keywords":4,"overallStatus":38,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":643,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":644,"startDateStruct":645,"completionDateStruct":647,"leadSponsor":648,"locationsCount":78},"100591780","erector-spinae-plane-block-for-children-undergoing-thoracoscopic-sympathectomy-100591780","NCT06984874","Erector Spinae Plane Block for Children Undergoing Thoracoscopic Sympathectomy","Erector Spinae Plane Block for Children Undergoing Thoracoscopic Sympathectomy: A Prospective Controlled Trial","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Age from 6 to 16 years.\n* Either sexes (male or female).\n* American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I-II.\n* Scheduled for bilateral thoracoscopic sympathectomy under general anesthesia.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* History of allergy to local anesthetics.\n* Abnormal liver\u002Fkidney function.\n* Severe spinal deformities.\n* Bleeding or coagulation disorders.\n* Skin damage or infection at the proposed puncture site.","16 Years",{"count":140,"type":22},[25],"This study aims to evaluate the influence of ultrasound-guided erector spinae plane block on postoperative pain and diaphragmatic dysfunction in pediatric patients undergoing thoracoscopic sympathectomy.",[29,641,642],"Children","Thoracoscopic Sympathectomy","2025-05-14",{"date":599,"type":42},{"date":646,"type":42},"2025-01-15",{"date":488,"type":22},{"name":649,"class":77},"Menoufia University"]