[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"health-studies-list:{\"conditionNormalized\":\"nerve-block\",\"overallStatus\":[\"RECRUITING\",\"AVAILABLE\",\"NOT_YET_RECRUITING\"],\"orderBy\":\"LastUpdateSubmitDate:desc\",\"size\":25,\"offset\":0}":3,"health-study-condition:nerve-block":32},{"pageToken":4,"total":5,"offset":6,"count":7,"results":8},null,29,0,25,[9,53,92,120,155,185,218,247,272,302,330,353,379,404,425,455,484,510,541,562,580,600,623,645,670],{"id":10,"slug":11,"hasResults":12,"nctId":13,"briefTitle":14,"officialTitle":15,"acronym":16,"eligibilityCriteria":17,"healthyVolunteers":12,"sex":18,"minAge":19,"maxAge":20,"enrollmentInfo":21,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":24,"phases":25,"briefSummary":27,"conditions":28,"keywords":34,"overallStatus":40,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":41,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":42,"startDateStruct":45,"completionDateStruct":47,"leadSponsor":49,"locationsCount":52},"100641134","spsip-block-for-pain-control-after-breast-reduction-surgery-100641134",false,"NCT07657949","SPSIP Block for Pain Control After Breast Reduction Surgery","Effect of Ultrasound-Guided Serratus Posterior Superior Intercostal Plane Block on Opioid Consumption After Reduction Mammaplasty: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial","SPSIP-RM","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Female participants aged 18 to 65 years\n* Scheduled for elective bilateral reduction mammaplasty\n* Planned surgery under general anesthesia\n* American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status class I to III\n* Planned postoperative clinical follow-up for the first 24 hours after surgery\n* Able to understand and report pain using the 0 to 10 Numeric Rating Scale\n* Able to provide written informed consent for study participation\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Known allergy or hypersensitivity to local anesthetic drugs\n* Contraindication to regional anesthesia or fascial plane block\n* Coagulopathy or clinically significant bleeding disorder\n* Use of anticoagulant or antiplatelet medication that prevents safe block application\n* Infection at the planned block injection site\n* Chronic opioid use, chronic pain syndrome, or regular analgesic use that may affect postoperative pain assessment\n* Revision breast surgery\n* Planned major additional surgical procedure other than reduction mammaplasty\n* Pregnancy or lactation\n* Unable to reliably report pain scores","FEMALE","18 Years","65 Years",{"count":22,"type":23},80,"ESTIMATED","INTERVENTIONAL",[26],"NA","The goal of this clinical trial is to learn whether an ultrasound-guided serratus posterior superior intercostal plane block (SPSIP block) can lower the need for opioid pain medicine after breast reduction surgery.\n\nThe main question it aims to answer is: Does adding an SPSIP block to standard anesthesia and pain treatment lower opioid use during the first 24 hours after surgery? Researchers will compare participants who receive standard anesthesia and pain treatment with participants who receive standard anesthesia and pain treatment plus an SPSIP block.\n\nParticipants will:\n\n* Have planned bilateral breast reduction surgery under general anesthesia\n* Be randomly assigned to the SPSIP block group or the control group\n* Receive standard local anesthetic infiltration during surgery and standard pain treatment after surgery\n* Have their pain score and pain medicine use recorded during the first 24 hours after surgery\n* Be followed for safety and complications for 30 days after surgery",[29,30,31,32,33],"Postoperative Pain Breast Reduction","Mammaplasty","Analgesia","Nerve Block","Opioid Consumption, Postoperative",[35,36,37,38,39],"Serratus posterior superior intercostal plane block","Ultrasound-guided regional anesthesia","Reduction mammaplasty","Breast reduction surgery","Postoperative pain","NOT_YET_RECRUITING","2026-06-14",{"date":43,"type":44},"2026-06-18","ACTUAL",{"date":46,"type":23},"2026-08-01",{"date":48,"type":23},"2027-08-31",{"name":50,"class":51},"Cumhuriyet University Hospital","OTHER",1,{"id":54,"slug":55,"hasResults":12,"nctId":56,"briefTitle":57,"officialTitle":58,"acronym":59,"eligibilityCriteria":60,"healthyVolunteers":12,"sex":61,"minAge":19,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":62,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":24,"phases":64,"briefSummary":65,"conditions":66,"keywords":72,"overallStatus":82,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":83,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":84,"startDateStruct":86,"completionDateStruct":88,"leadSponsor":90,"locationsCount":52},"100611379","peng-block--lia-for-endoprosthesis-surgery-100611379","NCT07239817","PENG Block + LIA For Endoprosthesis Surgery","PENG 360°: PENG Block + LIA Nella Endoprotesi di Anca.","PENG 360°","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Provision of signed and dated informed consent form.\n* Scheduled for hip endoprosthesis surgery for femoral fracture with an anterior approach.\n* Age 18 years or older.\n* Willing and able to comply with the study protocol.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Failure to provide informed consent.\n* Age less than 18 years.\n* Known allergy to local anesthetics or other medications used in the protocol.\n* Presence of infection at the planned injection site.\n* Pre-existing hip prosthesis or prior major surgery on the same hip (e.g., revision surgery).\n* ASA physical status class \\> IV.\n* Administration of intraoperative opiates or conversion to general anesthesia.","ALL",{"count":63,"type":23},100,[26],"The goal of this clinical trial is to learn if a new local anesthesia technique can control pain as well as the standard spinal anesthesia for adults having hip endoprosthesis surgery. The main questions it aims to answer are:\n\n* Is the new local anesthesia technique as effective as standard spinal anesthesia in managing pain during the first two days after surgery?\n* Does the new technique allow participants to move their leg sooner after the operation?\n\nResearchers will compare the new local anesthesia technique (numbing medicine injected directly around the hip joint) to standard spinal anesthesia (a numbing injection in the back) to see if the new technique works just as well for pain control while possibly causing fewer side effects like nausea.\n\nParticipants who join this study will be randomly placed into one of two groups.\n\nOne group will receive the standard spinal anesthesia before their surgery.\n\nThe other group will receive the new local anesthesia technique before their surgery.\n\nAfter the operation, researchers will track the amount of extra pain medicine each participant uses and will check their ability to move their hip, knee, and foot.",[67,68,69,70,32,71],"Hip Fractures","Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip","Pain, Postoperative","Anesthesia and Analgesia","Local Anesthesia Infiltration",[73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81],"Pericapsular Nerve Group Block","PENG block","Local Infiltration Analgesia","Spinal Anesthesia","Hip Arthroplasty","Postoperative Pain","Femoral Fractures","Ultrasound Guidance","Early Mobilization","RECRUITING","2026-06-10",{"date":85,"type":44},"2026-06-12",{"date":87,"type":44},"2025-12-09",{"date":89,"type":23},"2026-12-30",{"name":91,"class":51},"ASST Gaetano Pini-CTO",{"id":93,"slug":94,"hasResults":12,"nctId":95,"briefTitle":96,"officialTitle":97,"acronym":98,"eligibilityCriteria":99,"healthyVolunteers":12,"sex":61,"minAge":19,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":100,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":102,"phases":4,"briefSummary":103,"conditions":104,"keywords":105,"overallStatus":40,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":111,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":112,"startDateStruct":114,"completionDateStruct":116,"leadSponsor":118,"locationsCount":52},"100642555","shoulder-ra-survey-study-100642555","NCT07641842","Shoulder RA Survey Study","Patient Experience of Benefits and Limitations of Single Injection Peripheral Nerve Block for Shoulder Surgery: A Cross-sectional Survey","RA","Inclusion Criteria:\n\nParticipants must meet all the following inclusion criteria to be eligible for the study:\n\n1. Patients receiving a single-injection PNB for outpatient arthroscopic shoulder surgery at TWH and WCH\n2. Age ≥18 years\n3. Able to communicate in English\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n1. Cognitive impairment (inability to consent to participate in study)\n2. Refusal to participate in study\n3. Patients with primary block failure defined as those without a detectable sensory or motor block (determined by inability to abduct the arm and numbness or loss of sensation to pinprick over lateral shoulder\u002Fdeltoid muscle, C5 dermatome)",{"count":101,"type":23},140,"OBSERVATIONAL","The purpose of this study, called a cross-sectional survey, is to interview patients on their experiences of pain and recovery following keyhole shoulder surgery, after receiving a single shot nerve block in addition to a general anesthetic. The researchers would like to explore patients' experiences to see if there are groups of patients who may benefit from insertion of a nerve catheter as compared to a single shot nerve block injection for keyhole shoulder surgery.",[32],[106,107,108,109,110],"Nerve block","Nerve catheter block","Shoulder Arthroscopic Surgery","Survey","Continuous nerve block catheter infusion","2026-06-09",{"date":113,"type":44},"2026-06-11",{"date":115,"type":23},"2026-05-15",{"date":117,"type":23},"2026-12-31",{"name":119,"class":51},"University Health Network, Toronto",{"id":121,"slug":122,"hasResults":12,"nctId":123,"briefTitle":124,"officialTitle":125,"acronym":126,"eligibilityCriteria":127,"healthyVolunteers":12,"sex":61,"minAge":19,"maxAge":20,"enrollmentInfo":128,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":24,"phases":130,"briefSummary":131,"conditions":132,"keywords":135,"overallStatus":82,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":146,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":147,"startDateStruct":149,"completionDateStruct":151,"leadSponsor":153,"locationsCount":52},"100635258","bupivacaine-lidocaine-vs-bupivacaine-for-ultrasound-guided-popliteal-sciatic-nerve-block-100635258","NCT07550348","Bupivacaine-Lidocaine vs Bupivacaine for Ultrasound-Guided Popliteal Sciatic Nerve Block","Bupivacaine-Lidocaine Combination Versus Bupivacaine Alone for Ultrasound-Guided Popliteal Sciatic Nerve Block in Elective Lower Extremity Surgery: A Prospective Randomized Double-Blind Trial","PSSNB-BL","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Age between 18 and 65 years\n* American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status classification I, II, or III\n* Scheduled for elective distal lower extremity surgery (below-knee)\n* Body mass index (BMI) between 18 and 35 kg\u002Fm²\n* Provision of written informed consent\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Refusal to participate in the study\n* Morbid obesity (BMI ≥35 kg\u002Fm²)\n* Known allergy or hypersensitivity to any local anesthetic agent\n* Severe cardiac, hepatic, or renal disease\n* Pre-existing neurological deficits or peripheral neuropathy\n* Use of anticoagulant therapy\n* History of prior surgery or significant scar tissue in the popliteal fossa\n* Pregnancy\n* Chronic opioid use at home",{"count":129,"type":23},60,[26],"This prospective, randomized, double-blind clinical trial aims to compare the efficacy of two local anesthetic regimens for ultrasound-guided popliteal sciatic nerve block in adult patients undergoing elective distal lower extremity surgery.\n\nEligible participants (ages 18-65, ASA physical status I-III, BMI 18-35 kg\u002Fm²) will be randomized into two equal groups of 30. Patients in Group BL will receive a combination of 10 mL 2% lidocaine and 10 mL 0.5% bupivacaine, while patients in Group B will receive 20 mL 0.5% bupivacaine alone, administered via ultrasound-guided popliteal sciatic nerve block prior to surgery.\n\nThe primary outcome is the onset time of sensory and motor blockade. Secondary outcomes include block success rate, duration of sensory and motor block, postoperative opioid consumption, pain scores assessed by the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) at 2, 4, 8, 12, and 24 hours postoperatively, Quality of Recovery-15 (QoR-15) score, and incidence of rebound pain.\n\nThe study is conducted at Ataturk University Research Hospital, Department of Anesthesiology and Reanimation, Erzurum, Turkey.",[133,32,69,134],"Lower Extremity","Pain, Nerve",[136,137,138,139,140,141,142,143,144,145],"Popliteal sciatic nerve block","Bupivacaine","Lidocaine","Local anesthetic","Ultrasound-guided nerve block","Regional anesthesia","Postoperative analgesia","Block onset time","Lower extremity surgery","QoR-15","2026-05-08",{"date":148,"type":44},"2026-05-12",{"date":150,"type":44},"2025-12-01",{"date":152,"type":23},"2027-03-01",{"name":154,"class":51},"Ataturk University",{"id":156,"slug":157,"hasResults":12,"nctId":158,"briefTitle":159,"officialTitle":160,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":161,"healthyVolunteers":162,"sex":61,"minAge":19,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":163,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":24,"phases":165,"briefSummary":166,"conditions":167,"keywords":172,"overallStatus":82,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":175,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":176,"startDateStruct":178,"completionDateStruct":180,"leadSponsor":182,"locationsCount":52},"100579224","comparison-of-pain-relief-methods-for-hip-surgery-a-study-on-two-different-nerve-block-techniques-100579224","NCT06821516","Comparison of Pain Relief Methods for Hip Surgery: A Study on Two Different Nerve Block Techniques","Comparison of Analgesic Effectiveness Between Pericapsular Nerve Group (PENG) Block and Lumbar Erector Spinae Plane Block in Patients Undergoing Total Hip Arthroplasty With Spinal Anesthesia: a Randomized Controlled Trial","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Voluntary willingness to participate in the study.\n* Patients who will undergo Total Hip Arthroplasty surgery.\n* Patients aged over 18 years.\n* ASA score I-II-III.\n* Patients who are fully oriented and can cooperate.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* ASA score IV-V.\n* Patients who refuse to participate in the study.\n* Patients under 18 years of age.\n* Presence of active infection in the area to be operated on.\n* Chronic pain and continuous analgesic use.\n* Patients with coagulation disorders.\n* Patients who cannot cooperate with postoperative pain follow-up.\n* Patients with allergies to local anesthetic agents.\n* Presence of neuropathy or myopathy in the operated extremity.",true,{"count":164,"type":23},52,[26],"This prospective randomized comparative study aims to compare the analgesic efficacy of pericapsular nerve group block (PENG) and lumbar erector spinae plane block (L-ESP) groups to relieve postoperative pain in participants over the age of 18 undergoing total hip arthroplasty under spinal anesthesia. The main question it aims to answer is:\n\nTo demonstrate whether PENG block or L-ESP block is more effective in postoperative analgesia in patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty surgery based on pain scores, opioid consumption, and patient satisfaction.\n\nTotal hip arthroplasties cause severe pain with movement in the postoperative period. After surgery, the movements of the participants are severely restricted, which increases the possibility of complications. In this study, the participants' pain status, VAS score, opioid consumption through patient-controlled analgesia, and patient satisfaction will be measured with a questionnaire for 24 hours at predetermined time points and then compared. Both types of blocks have pain-relieving effects. This study will only investigate which one is more effective in reducing pain, and there will be no deficiency in relieving the pain of the participants.",[33,69,32,168,169,170,171],"PENG Block","Lumbar Erector Spinae Plane Block","Hip Replacement, Total","Postoperative Analgesia",[173,169,174,142],"Pericapsular Nerve Group (PENG) Block","Total Hip Arthroplasty","2026-05-01",{"date":177,"type":44},"2026-05-07",{"date":179,"type":44},"2025-01-21",{"date":181,"type":23},"2026-06-01",{"name":183,"class":184},"Başakşehir Çam & Sakura City Hospital","OTHER_GOV",{"id":186,"slug":187,"hasResults":12,"nctId":188,"briefTitle":189,"officialTitle":190,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":191,"healthyVolunteers":12,"sex":61,"minAge":19,"maxAge":192,"enrollmentInfo":193,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":24,"phases":195,"briefSummary":196,"conditions":197,"keywords":201,"overallStatus":82,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":211,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":212,"startDateStruct":214,"completionDateStruct":215,"leadSponsor":216,"locationsCount":52},"100632144","liposomal-bupivacaine-versus-ropivacaine-with-perineural-dexamethasone-or-dexmedetomidine-as-adjuncts-for-adductor-canal-block-combined-with-ipack-block-in-total-knee-arthroplasty-100632144","NCT07509866","Liposomal Bupivacaine Versus Ropivacaine With Perineural Dexamethasone or Dexmedetomidine as Adjuncts for Adductor Canal Block Combined With IPACK Block in Total Knee Arthroplasty","A Randomized Trial of Liposomal Bupivacaine, Ropivacaine With Perineural Dexamethasone, and Ropivacaine With Perineural Dexmedetomidine for Adductor Canal Block Combined With IPACK Block in Total Knee Arthroplasty","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Patients scheduled for elective primary unilateral total knee arthroplasty\n* Age ≥ 18 years and ≤ 80 years\n* American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I-III\n* Body mass index (BMI) ≥ 18 kg\u002Fm² and ≤ 35 kg\u002Fm²\n* Ability to understand and provide written informed consent\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Known allergy or contraindication to local anesthetics (bupivacaine, ropivacaine), dexamethasone, dexmedetomidine, or opioids\n* Infection at the injection site\n* Coagulopathy or current use of anticoagulants\n* Severe cardiovascular disease (New York Heart Association \\[NYHA\\] functional class III or IV, or recent myocardial infarction within 6 months)\n* Severe hepatic impairment (Child-Pugh class C) or renal impairment (estimated glomerular filtration rate \\[eGFR\\] \\\u003C 30 mL\u002Fmin\u002F1.73 m²)\n* Uncontrolled hypertension (systolic blood pressure \\> 180 mmHg or diastolic blood pressure \\> 110 mmHg despite medical therapy)\n* Uncontrolled diabetes mellitus (HbA1c \\> 8.5%)\n* Bilateral TKA or revision TKA\n* Chronic opioid use (daily opioid consumption for \\> 3 months prior to surgery)\n* Participation in another interventional clinical trial within 30 days prior to enrollment\n* Inability to communicate with study personnel or complete pain assessments (e.g., language barrier, cognitive impairment)","80 Years",{"count":194,"type":23},90,[26],"Effective postoperative pain management remains a cornerstone of enhanced recovery protocols following total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Inadequate analgesia not only compromises patient satisfaction but also impedes early mobilization and rehabilitation, thereby increasing the risk of perioperative complications. Current multimodal analgesic strategies frequently incorporate regional techniques, with the adductor canal block (ACB) and infiltration between the popliteal artery and capsule of the knee (IPACK) block emerging as established modalities that provide motor-sparing analgesia.\n\nDespite their widespread adoption, the optimal local anesthetic regimen for these blocks remains undefined. While liposomal bupivacaine has garnered interest for its extended duration of action, its clinical efficacy relative to conventional local anesthetics combined with perineural adjuncts remains a subject of ongoing debate. Specifically, perineural dexamethasone and dexmedetomidine have each demonstrated the capacity to prolong the analgesic duration of ropivacaine; however, direct comparative data among these three distinct strategies-liposomal bupivacaine alone versus ropivacaine supplemented with either adjunct-are notably limited.\n\nGiven the absence of head-to-head randomized trials evaluating these three clinically viable techniques, the optimal approach to maximize analgesic duration while minimizing opioid-related adverse effects remains unclear. This study therefore aims to compare the analgesic efficacy and safety profiles of liposomal bupivacaine, ropivacaine with perineural dexamethasone, and ropivacaine with perineural dexmedetomidine when administered via ACB and IPACK blocks in patients undergoing TKA.",[198,32,199,200],"Total Knee Anthroplasty","Ropivacaine","Liposomal Bupivacaine",[202,203,204,205,206,207,208,209,210],"total knee arthroplasty","adductor canal block","IPACK block","liposomal bupivacaine","ropivacaine","perineural adjuncts","dexamethasone","dexmedetomidine","multimodal analgesia","2026-04-09",{"date":213,"type":44},"2026-04-14",{"date":211,"type":44},{"date":89,"type":23},{"name":217,"class":51},"Huazhong University of Science and Technology",{"id":219,"slug":220,"hasResults":12,"nctId":221,"briefTitle":222,"officialTitle":223,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":224,"healthyVolunteers":12,"sex":18,"minAge":19,"maxAge":225,"enrollmentInfo":226,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":24,"phases":228,"briefSummary":229,"conditions":230,"keywords":233,"overallStatus":82,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":238,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":239,"startDateStruct":241,"completionDateStruct":243,"leadSponsor":245,"locationsCount":52},"100632175","investigation-of-the-effects-of-serratus-posterior-superior-intercostal-plane-block-and-serratus-anterior-plane-block-on-perioperative-analgesia-management-in-patients-scheduled-for-mastectomy-100632175","NCT07510269","Investigation of the Effects of Serratus Posterior Superior Intercostal Plane Block and Serratus Anterior Plane Block on Perioperative Analgesia Management in Patients Scheduled for Mastectomy","Mastektomi Planlanan Hastalarda Serratus Posterior Superior İnterkostal Plan Bloğu Ile Serratus Anterior Plan Bloğunun Peroperatif Analjezi Yönetimi Üzerine Etkilerinin Araştırılması","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Female patients aged between 18 and 75 years\n* Patients scheduled for elective mastectomy surgery\n* American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I-III\n* Patients who provide written informed consent\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Patients who refuse to participate in the study\n* Patients with American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status IV or V\n* Patients receiving anticoagulant therapy or with suspected coagulopathy\n* Patients with known allergy to local anesthetic agents\n* Infection at the site of block application\n* Pregnant patients or those with suspected pregnancy\n* Patients with severe neurological or psychiatric disorders\n* Patients with severe cardiovascular disease\n* Patients with chronic opioid use\n* Patients with hepatic failure or renal failure (glomerular filtration rate \\\u003C15 mL\u002Fmin\u002F1.73 m²)","75 Years",{"count":227,"type":23},66,[26],"This study aims to evaluate and compare the analgesic efficacy of two ultrasound-guided regional anesthesia techniques, the serratus anterior plane (SAP) block and the serratus posterior superior intercostal plane (SPSIP) block, in patients undergoing elective mastectomy surgery. Postoperative pain following mastectomy is a common and significant clinical problem that negatively affects patient comfort, delays mobilization, and may prolong hospital stay. Although systemic analgesics are commonly used, they are associated with adverse effects such as sedation, constipation, and potential dependency.\n\nIn this randomized clinical study, female patients aged 18-75 years with ASA physical status I-III scheduled for elective mastectomy will be included after obtaining informed consent. Patients will be allocated into two groups to receive either SAP block or SPSIP block under ultrasound guidance prior to surgery. Standardized general anesthesia and perioperative analgesia protocols will be applied to all patients.\n\nThe primary objective is to compare postoperative pain scores between the two groups using the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS). Secondary outcomes include time to first analgesic requirement, total analgesic consumption, intraoperative opioid use, and hemodynamic parameters. By comparing these two interfascial plane blocks, this study aims to identify a more effective analgesic technique that improves postoperative pain control, enhances patient comfort, and facilitates early mobilization following mastectomy.",[78,32,231,232],"Mastectomy","Patient Outcome Assessment",[234,235,236,237],"Serratus Posterior Superior Intercostal Plane Block","Serratus Anterior Plane Block","Multimodal Analgesia","Mastectomy Surgery","2026-03-29",{"date":240,"type":44},"2026-04-03",{"date":242,"type":44},"2025-10-15",{"date":244,"type":23},"2026-10-15",{"name":246,"class":51},"Uludag University",{"id":248,"slug":249,"hasResults":12,"nctId":250,"briefTitle":251,"officialTitle":252,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":253,"healthyVolunteers":12,"sex":61,"minAge":19,"maxAge":192,"enrollmentInfo":254,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":24,"phases":256,"briefSummary":257,"conditions":258,"keywords":260,"overallStatus":82,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":265,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":266,"startDateStruct":268,"completionDateStruct":269,"leadSponsor":271,"locationsCount":52},"100627745","comparison-of-the-efficacy-of-combined-transversus-thoracic-plane-block-and-serratus-anterior-plane-block-versus-erector-spinae-plane-block-in-the-management-of-sternotomy-pain-100627745","NCT07452627","Comparison of the Efficacy of Combined Transversus Thoracic Plane Block and Serratus Anterior Plane Block Versus Erector Spinae Plane Block in the Management of Sternotomy Pain","STERNOTOMİ AĞRISININ YÖNETİMİNDE TRANSVERSUS TORASİK PLAN BLOK VE SERRATUS ANTERİOR PLAN BLOK KOMBİNASYONU İLE EREKTÖR SPİNA PLAN BLOK ETKİNLİĞİNİN KARŞILAŞTIRILMASI","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Patients aged between 18 and 80 years.\n* Patients with American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I, II, or III.\n* Patients who provide written informed consent.\n* Patients scheduled for cardiac surgery via elective sternotomy.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Pregnancy or suspected pregnancy\n* Body Mass Index (BMI) \\> 35 kg\u002Fm²\n* History of allergy to local anesthetics or opioids\n* Suspected coagulopathy or infection at the injection site\n* Severe neurological, psychiatric, hepatic, or renal failure",{"count":255,"type":23},50,[26],"Background and Purpose: Median sternotomy is the standard surgical approach for cardiac procedures, yet it is associated with significant postoperative pain. Inadequate pain management can lead to pulmonary complications and chronic pain syndromes. While opioids are a cornerstone of multimodal analgesia, their side effects-such as sedation, respiratory depression, and nausea-can delay recovery. Furthermore, neuraxial techniques like epidural analgesia are often avoided in cardiac surgery due to the risks associated with systemic heparinization. This study aims to compare the efficacy of two non-neuraxial regional anesthesia techniques: the combination of Transversus Thoracic Plane Block (TTPB) and Serratus Anterior Plane Block (SAPB) versus the Erector Spinae Plane Block (ESPB).\n\nStudy Design and Population: This prospective, randomized study includes 50 patients (ASA I-III, aged 18-80) undergoing elective cardiac surgery via median sternotomy. Patients are randomized into two groups:\n\nTTPB + SAPB Group: Patients receive ultrasound-guided blocks targeting the anterior and lateral chest wall.\n\nESPB Group: Patients receive ultrasound-guided blocks targeting the paravertebral and intercostal spaces from a posterior approach.\n\nIntervention and Procedures: Following standardized anesthesia induction and invasive monitoring, the respective blocks are performed under ultrasound guidance. Intraoperative hemodynamic data are recorded at key surgical stages (incision, sternotomy, CPB). In the postoperative period in the intensive care unit (ICU), all patients will receive a standardized multimodal analgesia protocol including intravenous (IV) paracetamol and IV tenoxicam. While patients are intubated, pain will be assessed using the Behavioral Pain Scale (BPS). If the BPS score is above 3, IV fentanyl will be administered as rescue analgesia.\n\nFollowing extubation, pain levels will be evaluated using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) at rest and during coughing at specific time points (0, 1, 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, and 24 hours). If the post-extubation VAS score is 4 or higher, intramuscular meperidine will be given as rescue analgesia. Additionally, IV ondansetron will be administered in case of nausea or vomiting. The study will also evaluate the time to extubation, time to clinical transport, and patient\u002Fsurgeon satisfaction using a 5-point Likert scale.\n\nPrimary and Secondary Outcomes:\n\nThe primary objective of this study is to compare postoperative pain intensity between the study groups using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) (0-10) and the Behavioral Pain Scale (BPS) (3-12).\n\nSecondary objectives include:\n\nOpioid Consumption: Comparison of total intraoperative and postoperative opioid (IV fentanyl and IM meperidine) consumption within the first 24 hours.\n\nRecovery Milestones: Measurement of time to extubation, time to first mobilization, and time to clinical transport to the surgical ward.\n\nClinical Satisfaction and Safety: Assessment of patient and surgeon satisfaction using a 5-point Likert scale, and monitoring the incidence of opioid-related side effects, specifically postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) requiring ondansetron.\n\nExpected Impact:\n\nBy identifying the most effective regional anesthesia technique (TTPB+SAPB vs. ESPB) in conjunction with a standardized multimodal analgesia protocol (IV paracetamol and tenoxicam), this study seeks to maximize postoperative pain control and patient comfort. The results aim to achieve superior analgesia with lower pain scores, thereby facilitating earlier mobilization, reducing the incidence of postoperative complications, and enhancing the overall recovery process for patients undergoing cardiac surgery via median sternotomy. This approach ultimately contributes to the development of more effective, pain-centered recovery protocols in the intensive care unit.",[78,259,32,232],"Sternotomy",[261,235,262,263,264,236],"Transversus Thoracic Plane Block","Erector Spinae Plane Block","Sternotomy Pain","Cardiac Surgery","2026-03-06",{"date":267,"type":44},"2026-03-10",{"date":150,"type":44},{"date":270,"type":23},"2026-12",{"name":246,"class":51},{"id":273,"slug":274,"hasResults":12,"nctId":275,"briefTitle":276,"officialTitle":277,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":278,"healthyVolunteers":12,"sex":61,"minAge":19,"maxAge":279,"enrollmentInfo":280,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":24,"phases":281,"briefSummary":283,"conditions":284,"keywords":288,"overallStatus":40,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":294,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":295,"startDateStruct":297,"completionDateStruct":299,"leadSponsor":300,"locationsCount":4},"100621771","phase-4-minimal-effective-volume-90-for-double-injection-costoclavicular-block-100621771","NCT07374952","Minimal Effective Volume 90% for Double-injection Costoclavicular Block","Minimum Effective Volume of Lidocaine for Double-Injection Ultrasound-Guided Costoclavicular Block","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Age between 18 and 70 years\n* American Society of Anesthesiologists classification 1-3\n* Body mass index between 20 and 30\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Adults who are unable to give their own consent\n* Pre-existing neuropathy (assessed by history and physical examination)\n* Coagulopathy (assessed by history and physical examination and, if deemed clinically necessary, by blood work up i.e. platelets≤ 100, International Normalized Ratio≥ 1.4 or partial prothrombin time ≥ 50)\n* Renal failure (assessed by history and physical examination and, if deemed clinically necessary, by blood work up i.e. creatinine≥ 100)\n* Hepatic failure (assessed by history and physical examination and, if deemed clinically necessary, by blood work up i.e. transaminases≥ 100)\n* Allergy to LA\n* Pregnancy\n* Prior surgery in the infraclavicular region\n* Chronic pain syndromes requiring opioid intake at home","70 Years",{"count":129,"type":23},[282],"PHASE4","In 2020, a trial demonstrated that a 2-injection technique constitutes the optimal method for the costoclavicular block.\n\nThis study aims to determine the minimum amount of medication required to achieve a successful double-injection costoclavicular nerve.\n\nBlock dose assignment will be done using an up-and-down sequential method, called the Biased Coin Design (BCD).\n\nThe double-injection technique for US-guided costoclavicular block consists in depositing two thirds of the LA volume in the deep compartment (to anesthetize the posterior and medial cords), and one third of the injectate in the superficial compartment (to anesthetize the lateral cord).\n\nThe ED90 will be calculated using isotonic regression with a 95% confidence interval derived by bootstrapping.",[285,138,32,286,287],"Brachial Plexus Blocks","Dose Finding Study","Costoclavicular Block",[289,290,291,292,293],"costoclavicular block","double injection technique","dose finding","nerve block","lidocaine","2026-02-18",{"date":296,"type":44},"2026-02-20",{"date":298,"type":23},"2026-02-01",{"date":117,"type":23},{"name":301,"class":51},"McGill University Health Centre\u002FResearch Institute of the McGill University Health Centre",{"id":303,"slug":304,"hasResults":12,"nctId":305,"briefTitle":306,"officialTitle":307,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":308,"healthyVolunteers":12,"sex":61,"minAge":19,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":309,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":24,"phases":310,"briefSummary":311,"conditions":312,"keywords":315,"overallStatus":40,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":321,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":322,"startDateStruct":324,"completionDateStruct":326,"leadSponsor":328,"locationsCount":52},"100618877","ultrasound-guided-external-oblique-intercostal-plane-block-versus-erector-spinae-block-for-post-hepatectomy-pain-100618877","NCT07337330","Ultrasound Guided External Oblique Intercostal Plane Block Versus Erector Spinae Block for Post Hepatectomy Pain","Comparative Study Between Ultrasound Guided External Oblique Intercostal Plane Block and Erector Spinae Block for Postoperative Analgesia in Hepatectomy Incision in Cancer Patients","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Cancer patients undergoing hepatectomy under general anaesthesia\n* Aged 18 years or older\n* ASA II \\& III\n* BMI \\>20kg\u002Fm2 and \\\u003C35kg\u002Fm2\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* History of psychiatric disorders or history of major depression.\n* Major medical conditions (heart failure , chronic kidney disease ,patient on dialysis)",{"count":164,"type":23},[26],"Management of acute post-operative pain has received keen attention in recent years with considerable concurrent advancement in the field.\n\nThe importance of effective pain relief has long been realised, and acute pain services (APS) are operational in majority of the hospitals in the developed world for decades.\n\nPostoperative pain following abdominal surgery if severe enough may cause several side effects as \"splinting, hypoventilation, atelectasis, immobility, hypercoagulability, thromboembolic events, vasoconstriction, tachycardia, increased systemic vascular resistance, dysrhythmias and cardiac ischemia in susceptible patients, insomnia, anxiety, feeling of helplessness\".\n\nUltrasound-guided fascial plane blocks have been rapidly incorporated into regional anaesthesia practice in recent years as an alternative to neuraxial techniques and involve injection into a tissue plane to provide analgesia in various anatomic areas.\n\nExternal oblique intercostal plane block (EOIPB) is a novel block, which has been described as an important modification of the fascial plane blocks that can consistently involve the upper lateral abdominal walls.\n\nThe erector spinae plane (ESP) block is a new regional aesthetic technique that can be used to provide analgesia for a variety of surgical procedures or to manage acute or chronic pain. The technique is relatively easy to perform on patients.\n\nThe ESPB involves injection of local anaesthetic in the erector spinae fascial plane, superficial to the tip of the transverse process of the vertebra and deep to the erector spinae muscle.",[313,314,32],"Pain; Cancer","Hepatectomy",[316,317,318,319,320],"hepatectomy","erector spinae block","external oblique intercostal plane block","liver cancer","ultrasound guided","2026-01-29",{"date":323,"type":44},"2026-02-02",{"date":325,"type":23},"2026-01-15",{"date":327,"type":23},"2026-09-15",{"name":329,"class":51},"National Cancer Institute, Egypt",{"id":331,"slug":332,"hasResults":12,"nctId":333,"briefTitle":334,"officialTitle":335,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":336,"healthyVolunteers":162,"sex":61,"minAge":19,"maxAge":279,"enrollmentInfo":337,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":24,"phases":338,"briefSummary":339,"conditions":340,"keywords":343,"overallStatus":40,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":344,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":345,"startDateStruct":347,"completionDateStruct":349,"leadSponsor":351,"locationsCount":4},"100622467","comparison-between-external-oblique-intercostal-plane-block-and-rectus-sheath-block-combined-with-transversus-abdominis-plane-block-100622467","NCT07384000","Comparison Between External Oblique Intercostal Plane Block and Rectus Sheath Block Combined With Transversus Abdominis Plane Block","The Efficacy of Single Puncture Technique of Rectus Sheath Block Combined With Transversus Abdominis Plane Block Versus External Oblique Intercostal Plane Block for Pain Control After Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy.","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Patients undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy\n* American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) 1-II\n* aged 18-70 years\n* both genders will be included.\n* body mass index (BMI) ≤ 35 kg\u002Fm2.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* coagulation disorders\n* liver\u002Fkidney disease\n* History of abdominal surgery\n* infection in the block application area\n* chronic opioid use\n* local anesthetic (LA) allergy\n* Pregnancy",{"count":129,"type":23},[26],"Effective perioperative pain management remains a cornerstone in enhancing recovery and improving patient outcomes in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. This minimally invasive procedure, although less traumatic compared to open surgery, can still lead to significant postoperative pain, particularly in the early hours following the operation. Insufficient pain control may result in delayed mobilization, prolonged hospital stays, and increased opioid consumption, which are associated with adverse side effects and a heightened risk of complications . Regional anesthesia techniques have garnered significant attention for their ability to provide localized, opioid-sparing analgesia, thereby improving postoperative recovery profiles.External Oblique Intercostal Plane Block (EOIP) is a relatively new regional anesthesia technique targeting the intercostal nerves (T7-T11) as they traverse the plane between the external and internal oblique muscles. This block has demonstrated efficacy in controlling postoperative pain for upper abdominal surgeries, including laparoscopic cholecystectomy. By selectively anesthetizing the sensory branches of the thoracoabdominal nerves, the EOIP block provides localized analgesia with minimal motor blockade, making it an ideal choice for early mobilization (Ouchi et al., 2020).Recent advancements in ultrasound-guided techniques have improved the precision and safety of the EOIP block, allowing for consistent blockade of the targeted nerves. Clinical trials have highlighted its ability to reduce the pain significantly in the first 24 hours postoperatively, along with a marked decrease in the need for rescue analgesics. Tranrversus abdominis plane block (TAP) , first described in the early 2000s, has undergone several modifications to improve its efficacy in abdominal surgeries. The subcostal TAP block targets the anterior branches of the lower thoracic nerves (T6-T9) to provide analgesia to the upper abdominal wall. This technique is particularly suited for laparoscopic cholecystectomy, where the pain originates predominantly from the pari0etal peritoneum and abdominal wall incisions.The single puncture technique of Rectus sheath block (RSB) combined with transversus abdominis plane block (TAPB) represents a more streamlined approach to abdominal wall analgesia. ultrasonography (US) guidance for peripheral nerve blocks has become more and more popular. Transversus abdominis plane block (TAPB) and US-guided rectus sheath block (RSB) have been utilized in abdominal surgeries and have shown strong analgesic effects. Prior researches has demonstrated that in abdominal surgery, US-guided (TAPB) in conjunction with (RSB) had superior analgesic effects than either (TAPB) or (RSB) alone. Currently, multipoint nerve block procedures are generally applied in clinical practice, but they are difficult and can increase the patient's suffering. A novel method is proposed based on the neuromuscular anatomy and the location of the incisiopn in laparoscopic upper abdominal surgery: US-guided transverse abdominis plane and rectus sheath block one-puncture .",[341,342,32],"Pain Management","Anesthesia , Analgesia",[334],"2026-01-26",{"date":346,"type":44},"2026-02-03",{"date":348,"type":23},"2026-01-20",{"date":350,"type":23},"2026-04-01",{"name":352,"class":51},"Minia University",{"id":354,"slug":355,"hasResults":12,"nctId":356,"briefTitle":357,"officialTitle":357,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":358,"healthyVolunteers":12,"sex":61,"minAge":19,"maxAge":225,"enrollmentInfo":359,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":24,"phases":361,"briefSummary":363,"conditions":364,"keywords":367,"overallStatus":82,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":371,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":372,"startDateStruct":374,"completionDateStruct":376,"leadSponsor":378,"locationsCount":52},"100612149","phase-2-a-randomized-comparison-between-067-mcgkg-1-mcgkg-and-133-mcgkg-of-perineural-dexmedetomidine-for-ultrasound-guided-infraclavicular-block-100612149","NCT07249827","A Randomized Comparison Between 0.67 mcg\u002Fkg, 1 mcg\u002Fkg, and 1.33 mcg\u002Fkg of Perineural Dexmedetomidine for Ultrasound-Guided Infraclavicular Block","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* patients undergoing upper limb surgery at or below the elbow\n* age between 18 and 75 years\n* American Society of Anesthesiologists classification 1-3\n* body mass index between 18 and 35 kg\u002Fm2\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* adults who are unable to give their own consent\n* allergy or contraindication to dexmedetomidine\n* exposure to dexmedetomidine during the previous 48 hrs\n* pre-existing neuropathy (assessed by history and physical examination)\n* coagulopathy (assessed by history and physical examination and, if deemed clinically necessary, by blood workup i.e. platelets ≤ 100, International Normalized Ratio ≥ 1.4 or partial prothrombin time ≥ 50)\n* renal failure (assessed by history and physical examination and, if deemed clinically necessary, by blood work-up i.e. creatinine. eGFR \\\u003C 90)\n* hepatic failure (assessed by history and physical examination and, if deemed clinically necessary, by blood work-up i.e. transaminases ≥ 100)\n* allergy to LA\n* pregnancy (as institutional policy, female patients with childbearing potential undergoing non urgent surgery are tested preoperatively for pregnancy with blood tests)\n* breast feeding\n* prior surgery in the infraclavicular region\n* chronic pain syndromes requiring opioid intake at home",{"count":360,"type":23},69,[362],"PHASE2","This study will compare three different doses of perineural dexmedetomidine 0.67 mcg\u002Fkg, 1 mcg\u002Fkg, and 1.33 mcg\u002Fkg as adjuvants to local anesthetics for ultrasound-guided infraclavicular brachial plexus blocks (ICBs). Our research hypothesis is that 1.33 mcg\u002Fkg will provide a 15%-longer duration than 1mcg\u002Fkg, which in turn will provide a 15%-longer duration than 0.67 mcg\u002Fkg. Since analgesic duration and sensory duration can be influenced by intake of pain medications and surgical trauma to small cutaneous nerves, respectively, we will select motor block duration as the main outcome to better target the action of dexmedetomidine on the brachial plexus.",[31,365,366,32],"Pain, Acute","Upper Extremity Surgery",[31,368,369,370,39,106],"Acute pain","Brachial plexus","Brachial plexus block","2026-01-04",{"date":373,"type":44},"2026-01-07",{"date":375,"type":44},"2025-12-28",{"date":377,"type":23},"2026-06-30",{"name":301,"class":51},{"id":380,"slug":381,"hasResults":12,"nctId":382,"briefTitle":383,"officialTitle":383,"acronym":384,"eligibilityCriteria":385,"healthyVolunteers":162,"sex":61,"minAge":386,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":387,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":24,"phases":388,"briefSummary":390,"conditions":391,"keywords":4,"overallStatus":82,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":395,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":396,"startDateStruct":398,"completionDateStruct":400,"leadSponsor":402,"locationsCount":52},"100596807","phase-3-post-operative-urinary-retention-on-revision-knee-arthroplasty-the-role-of-intrathecal-morphine-100596807","NCT07050277","Post-Operative Urinary Retention on Revision Knee Arthroplasty: the Role of Intrathecal Morphine","POURRKA","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Non pregnant patients undergoing unilateral non infected rTKA surgery;\n* Older than 21 years of age, with American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I-III;\n* With no alcohol or drug dependency history;\n* With sufficient understanding and co-operation about the usage of a perineural catheter for pain management; body mass index (BMI) under 45;\n* With no allergy to medications used in the study protocol (bupivacaine, lidocaine, ropivacaine, midazolam, propofol, ketamine, morphine, hydromorphone, fentanyl, acetaminophen, celecoxib, ondansetron, dexamethasone, tranexamic acid);\n* No current or recent use of opioids (within the last 2 weeks) in an average oral morphine equivalent (OME) of 20 mg\u002Fday or higher;\n* With no contra-indications for neuraxial anesthesia, IPACK block, ACB and adductor canal catheter insertion;\n* Who speak and understand the English language;\n* Who agrees to participate on this study through the signature of the consent form.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Patients will be excluded of the study if they have a failed spinal anesthesia and needs for a conversion to general anesthesia;\n* If peripheral nerve blocks are not possible to be performed due to technical difficulties;\n* If during patient's care a deviation of the protocol occurs;\n* If CACB catheter has issues on its function, disconnects or exteriorizes within the first 48 hours of infusion;\n* Or if patient decides to withdraw from the study.","21 Years",{"count":255,"type":23},[389],"PHASE3","Revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) is a frequently performed procedure. Adequate pain management is an important feature, especially for fast-track and Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) programs. The multimodal approach, including single shot or continuous nerve blocks with catheters and spinal or epidural morphine, is a stablished strategy. Although the administration of intrathecal morphine (IM) has been shown to significantly reduce pain scores, it is not free of adverse effects. Postoperative urinary retention (POUR) is possible and might increase the risk of periprosthetic infection. The purpose of this study is to compare patients undergoing rTKAS under spinal anesthesia with IM to patients undergoing the same procedure, under the same anesthetic technique, but with no IM, for POUR and postoperative pain related outcomes. All patients will have single shot and continuous adductor canal block (CACB) and single shot IPACK (interspace between the popliteal artery and the posterior knee capsule) block. The hypothesis is that postoperative pain control is comparable between the groups, with lower incidence of POUR in patients with no IM given.",[392,32,393,394],"Arthroplasties, Knee Replacement","Urinary Retention Postoperative","Anesthesia, Spinal","2025-12-19",{"date":397,"type":44},"2025-12-29",{"date":399,"type":44},"2025-06-24",{"date":401,"type":23},"2027-08-01",{"name":403,"class":51},"University of Toronto",{"id":405,"slug":406,"hasResults":12,"nctId":407,"briefTitle":408,"officialTitle":409,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":410,"healthyVolunteers":12,"sex":61,"minAge":19,"maxAge":192,"enrollmentInfo":411,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":24,"phases":412,"briefSummary":413,"conditions":414,"keywords":416,"overallStatus":82,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":150,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":417,"startDateStruct":419,"completionDateStruct":421,"leadSponsor":423,"locationsCount":52},"100581532","comparing-thoracolumbar-interfascial-and-quadro-iliac-plane-blocks-on-postoperative-opioid-use-following-lumbar-microsurgery-100581532","NCT06851533","Comparing Thoracolumbar Interfascial and Quadro Iliac Plane Blocks on Postoperative Opioid Use Following Lumbar Microsurgery","Comparison of the Effects of Thoracolumbar Interfascial Plane Block and Quadro Iliac Plane Block on Postoperative Opioid Consumption After Lumbar Microsurgery: A Randomized Controlled Trial","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Patients aged 18 to 80 years\n* American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I to III\n* scheduled for lumbar microdiscectomy surgery\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Known allergy to local anesthetics\n* Any other significant drug allergies related to the study interventions\n* Pregnancy\n* Pre-existing psychiatric or neurological disorders\n* Inability to provide informed consent",{"count":194,"type":23},[26],"Lumbar microdiscectomy is a commonly used surgical procedure for treating herniated discs. Effective postoperative analgesia is crucial for early mobilization and functional recovery. Uncontrolled postoperative pain can delay recovery, increase the risk of opioid dependence, and lead to respiratory complications.\n\nAlthough opioid analgesics effectively reduce pain, they can cause side effects such as nausea, vomiting, respiratory depression, and dependency. Therefore, non-opioid analgesic methods are preferred for patient safety and comfort. Recently, regional anesthesia techniques such as the Thoracolumbar Interfascial Plane (TLIP) block and the Quadro Iliac Plane Block have been introduced for postoperative pain management in lumbar surgeries. However, there are not enough studies comparing the superiority of these two methods.\n\nStudy Objective: The primary aim of this study is to evaluate the effects of ultrasound-guided TLIP and Quadro Iliac Plane Blocks on postoperative opioid consumption after lumbar microsurgery. The secondary aim is to compare opioid-related side effects (such as nausea, vomiting, respiratory depression, etc.) and postoperative NRS pain scores between the groups.",[415,32],"Lumbar Microdiscectomy",[39,140],{"date":418,"type":44},"2025-12-08",{"date":420,"type":44},"2025-03-10",{"date":422,"type":23},"2026-04-10",{"name":424,"class":51},"Medipol University",{"id":426,"slug":427,"hasResults":12,"nctId":428,"briefTitle":429,"officialTitle":430,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":431,"healthyVolunteers":162,"sex":61,"minAge":19,"maxAge":432,"enrollmentInfo":433,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":24,"phases":435,"briefSummary":436,"conditions":437,"keywords":441,"overallStatus":82,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":446,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":447,"startDateStruct":449,"completionDateStruct":451,"leadSponsor":453,"locationsCount":52},"100505972","phase-4-comparison-of-interscalene-catheter-to-single-injection-interscalene-blocks-for-total-shoulder-arthroplasties-100505972","NCT05868330","Comparison of Interscalene Catheter to Single Injection Interscalene Blocks for Total Shoulder Arthroplasties","A Feasibility Randomized Control Comparison of Peripheral Interscalene Catheter to Liposomal Bupivacaine Single Injection for Interscalene Blocks Used in Pain Control for Total Shoulder Arthroplasties","Inclusion Criteria:\n\nPatients who have or are:\n\n1. Orthopedics service patients having reverse shoulder replacement surgery\n2. ASA class I, II, or III.\n3. Patients at least 18 years old but less than 90 years old.\n4. Patients giving informed consent.\n5. Non-Emergency Surgery\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\nPatients who have or are:\n\n1. An inability to cooperate during the block placement.\n2. Patients who do not meet criteria for a regional block: such as those on anti-coagulation,\n3. Significant pulmonary disease or allergy to medications used for peripheral nerve blocks (Exparel, Bupivacaine and Ropivacaine)\n4. Neuropathy of the planned extremity to block\n5. Documented Kidney Failure\n6. Documented Liver Failure\n7. A lack of or inability to give informed consent.\n8. Currently incarcerated.\n9. Pregnant\n10. Unable to communicate in English\n11. Chronic pre-operative opioid use (greater than 20 MME opioid used)\n12. Fracture\n13. Revision surgery","90 Years",{"count":434,"type":23},56,[282],"Comparison of post-operative pain after total shoulder surgery. The Principle Investigator will be comparing Exparel single shot block to Interscalene catheter",[438,439,32,440],"Post Operative Pain","Anesthesia","Shoulder Osteoarthritis",[32,442,443,444,445],"Shoulder Replacement","Interscalene block","Peripheral Nerve Catheter","Exparel","2025-11-05",{"date":448,"type":44},"2025-11-10",{"date":450,"type":44},"2024-08-19",{"date":452,"type":23},"2027-01",{"name":454,"class":51},"Melinda Seering",{"id":456,"slug":457,"hasResults":12,"nctId":458,"briefTitle":459,"officialTitle":459,"acronym":460,"eligibilityCriteria":461,"healthyVolunteers":12,"sex":61,"minAge":19,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":462,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":24,"phases":464,"briefSummary":465,"conditions":466,"keywords":469,"overallStatus":82,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":476,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":477,"startDateStruct":479,"completionDateStruct":480,"leadSponsor":482,"locationsCount":52},"100591607","supra-inguinal-fascia-iliaca-block-as-rescue-analgesia-following-total-hip-arthroplasty-100591607","NCT06982625","Supra Inguinal Fascia Iliaca Block as Rescue Analgesia Following Total Hip Arthroplasty","SOSBIFSI","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* patient scheduled for a primary total hip arthroplasty under general anesthesia,\n* written informed consent.\n\nNon inclusion criteria:\n\n* contra indication to ropivacaine\n* vulnerable person\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* per-operative complication making wheight-bearing and walking contra-indicated.\n* patient without significant pain post-operatively.",{"count":463,"type":23},310,[26],"Hip replacement surgery is one of the most commonly performed surgical procedures in France, with approximately 150,000 procedures per year. Postoperative recovery has significantly improved in recent years, enabling faster rehabilitation.\n\nAlthough generally considered moderately painful, hip replacement surgery can, in some difficult-to-predict cases, lead to severe postoperative pain, requiring high doses of morphine, which may cause side effects and delay recovery.\n\nIn other surgical procedures, regional anesthesia (nerve blocks) has been successfully used for pain relief. However, its effectiveness after hip replacement surgery has not yet been fully proven.\n\nA recent regional anesthesia technique-the Supra-Inguinal Fascia Iliaca Block (SIFIB)-which numbs a significant portion of the nerves around the hip, has recently been developed.\n\nWhen performed in all patients undergoing hip arthroplasty, the benefit of this technique could not be demonstrated. In addition, this technique may lead to transcient muscle blockade, wich also can delay recovery.\n\nIn order to limit the use of nerve blocks to painful patients, we designed this study where the nerve block is performed only in patients experiencing significant paint after surgery.\n\nIn conclusion, this study aims to assess the benefits of performing a rescue SIFIB in the recovery room for patients who experience significant postoperative pain after hip replacement surgery. The evaluation will focus on pain relief and ability to walk.\n\nNo new treatment is being tested. The technique uses a commonly administered local anesthetic to numb the nerves.",[467,468,32],"Hip Arthroplasty, Total","Post Operative Pain, Acute",[470,141,471,472,473,474,475],"Total hip arthroplasty","Nerve blocks","Supra-inguinal fascia iliaca block","Enhanced recovery after surgery","Acute post-operative pain","Rescue analgesia","2025-09-22",{"date":478,"type":44},"2025-09-25",{"date":476,"type":44},{"date":481,"type":23},"2027-12-31",{"name":483,"class":51},"Institut Mutualiste Montsouris",{"id":485,"slug":486,"hasResults":12,"nctId":487,"briefTitle":488,"officialTitle":489,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":490,"healthyVolunteers":12,"sex":61,"minAge":19,"maxAge":192,"enrollmentInfo":491,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":24,"phases":492,"briefSummary":493,"conditions":494,"keywords":496,"overallStatus":82,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":500,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":501,"startDateStruct":503,"completionDateStruct":505,"leadSponsor":507,"locationsCount":509},"100604726","local-anaesthetic-spread-and-sensory-block-range-of-the-retro-superior-costotransverse-ligament-space-block-100604726","NCT07153263","Local Anaesthetic Spread and Sensory Block Range of the Retro-superior Costotransverse Ligament Space Block","Comparison of Local Anaesthetic Spread Between the Retro-superior Costotransverse Ligament Space Block and Thoracic Paravertebral Block: A Three-dimensional CT Reconstruction Imaging Study","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 local anesthetic;\n2. History of opioid abuse;\n3. Pre-existing skin infection at the puncture site of ITPN or TPVB;\n4. Peripheral infectious neuropathy;\n5. Dysfunction of blood coagulation",{"count":255,"type":23},[26],"The aim of this clinical trial is to investigate the effects of local anesthetic diffusion range and sensory block range during retro-SCTLB(retro superior costotransverse ligament space block) and TPVB(thoracic paravertebral block) in patients undergoing CT-guided lung nodule localization. The main issue of the study is to determine the differences in the diffusion range and sensory block range of local anesthetics between the retro-SCTLB and TPVB nerve block methods.",[495,32],"Pulmonary Nodules",[292,497,498,499],"TPVB","ITPB","rSCTL","2025-09-14",{"date":502,"type":44},"2025-09-16",{"date":504,"type":44},"2025-09-12",{"date":506,"type":23},"2026-09-30",{"name":508,"class":51},"Nanjing First Hospital, Nanjing Medical University",2,{"id":511,"slug":512,"hasResults":12,"nctId":513,"briefTitle":514,"officialTitle":515,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":516,"healthyVolunteers":12,"sex":61,"minAge":19,"maxAge":517,"enrollmentInfo":518,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":24,"phases":520,"briefSummary":521,"conditions":522,"keywords":527,"overallStatus":82,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":532,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":533,"startDateStruct":535,"completionDateStruct":537,"leadSponsor":539,"locationsCount":509},"100477248","impact-of-erector-spinae-plane-block-on-chronic-postsurgical-pain-in-breast-cancer-patients-100477248","NCT05494502","Impact of Erector Spinae Plane Block on Chronic Postsurgical Pain in Breast Cancer Patients","Impact of Erector Spinae Plane Block With Adjuvant Dexmedetomidine on Chronic Postsurgical Pain in Breast Cancer Patients: a Two-center Randomized Controlled Trial","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n1. Age of 18 years or over, but less than 85 years;\n2. Scheduled to undergo mastectomy for primary unilateral breast cancer.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n1. Previous breast cancer surgery with an incision of \\>2 cm;\n2. Chronic opioid dependence or long-term intake of analgesic medicines (\\>3 months);\n3. Any contraindication to erector spinae plane block, including intrathoracic infection, infection at the puncture site, cancer invasion of the puncture site, severe spinal deformity, history of spinal surgery, and severe coagulopathy;\n4. Inability to communicate in the preoperative period because of profound dementia, deafness, language barriers, or end-stage disease;\n5. History of malignant tumor in other organs, or a current combination of malignant tumor of other organs;\n6. History of coronary heart disease (diagnosed coronary stenosis, previous myocardial infarction, previous percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass grafting); preoperative hepatic or renal impairment (alanine transaminase and\u002For aspartate transaminase ≥2 times of upper limit of normal, or serum creatinine\\>133 µmol\u002FL); history of peptic ulcer or hemorrhage; ASA classification IV or above;\n7. Allergy to ropivacaine.","85 Years",{"count":519,"type":23},1206,[26],"Chronic postsurgical pain (CPSP) has an incidence of 46% in patients after breast cancer surgery, which seriously affects patients' physiological and psychological function, as well as quality of life. Acute pain is an independent risk factor for persistent pain after surgery. Erector spinae plane block (ESPB) provided excellent perioperative analgesia in patients undergoing breast surgery. Dexmedetomidine as an adjuvant of local anesthetics prolongs the duration of peripheral nerve block and decreases the requirements of postoperative analgesia. The investigators hypothesize that, for breast cancer patients undergoing mastectomy, ESPB (with a combination of 0.5% ropivacaine 35 ml and dexmedetomidine 1 microgram\u002Fkg) can reduce the occurrence of CPSP. The purpose of this randomized controlled trial is to investigate the impact of ESPB with adjuvant dexmedetomidine on the incidence of CPSP in breast cancer patients after mastectomy. We will also observe the impact of ESPB on long-term survival in these patients.",[523,231,32,524,69,525,526],"Breast Neoplasms","Dexmedetomidine","Chronic Pain","Prognosis",[528,231,529,524,39,530,531],"Breast cancer","Erector spinae plane block","Chronic postsurgical pain","Long-term prognosis","2025-07-29",{"date":534,"type":44},"2025-07-31",{"date":536,"type":44},"2023-05-23",{"date":538,"type":23},"2027-07",{"name":540,"class":51},"Peking University First Hospital",{"id":542,"slug":543,"hasResults":12,"nctId":544,"briefTitle":545,"officialTitle":546,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":547,"healthyVolunteers":162,"sex":61,"minAge":19,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":548,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":102,"phases":4,"briefSummary":550,"conditions":551,"keywords":4,"overallStatus":82,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":554,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":555,"startDateStruct":556,"completionDateStruct":558,"leadSponsor":560,"locationsCount":52},"100513652","near-remote-method-to-guide-performance-of-regional-anesthesia-100513652","NCT05968261","Near Remote Method to Guide Performance of Regional Anesthesia","Implementation and Measurement of a Real-time, Near-remote Method to Operationalize Ultrasound-based Regional Anesthesia\u002FAnalgesia Procedural Techniques","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Mentors: Staff anesthesiologists who are experts in regional blocks.\n* Trainees: Senior (PGY3-5) residents (anesthesiology and emergency medicine), and staff (emergency medicine) physicians who have already performed and are comfortable with being supervised near remotely for the regional block at hand.\n* Patients: Greater or equal to 18 years of age presenting for surgery or with traumatic injuries amenable to regional blocks.\n* All of the above: Able to read and understand English, and competent to provide written informed consent.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Mentors: Staff anesthesiologists who are not experts in the performance\u002Fteaching of regional blocks.\n* Trainees: Junior (PGY1-2) residents (for any\u002Fall types of regional blocks), and senior (PGY3-5) residents and staff physicians who are not comfortable with being supervised near remotely for the regional block at hand.\n* Patients: Less than 18 years of age.\n* All of the above: Unable to read and understand English, and not competent to provide written informed consent.",{"count":549,"type":23},200,"Ultrasound-guided regional anesthesia\u002Fanalgesia techniques (or simply, 'regional blocks') have gained popularity as they can reduce, and sometimes even eliminate, the need for opiate analgesics (and, consequently, their side effects), thereby improving patient safety, reducing length of hospital stay and medical costs, and improving patient satisfaction. However, a major barrier to mainstream uptake of such techniques relates to training. These techniques require the acquisition of new skills under expert guidance, which is often not possible given the daily demands placed upon anesthesiologists. As a result, many opportunities for providing regional blocks may be missed.\n\nThe purpose of this study is to implement a new real-time 'near remote' guidance method in which trainees who are to perform regional blocks can do so via tele-mentoring under expert guidance. This will be done using a novel technology whereby the ultrasound image is concurrently displayed on an iPad screen (for the block operator\u002Ftrainee) as well as on the (near remotely supervising) expert mentor's smartphone. Trainees and mentors will use this method to perform various standard of care regional blocks, either in the perioperative or emergency department settings. Participants' opinions of the novel teaching and learning method will be assessed.",[439,31,32,552,553],"Delivery of Healthcare","Hospitals, Teaching","2025-07-28",{"date":534,"type":44},{"date":557,"type":23},"2026-01",{"date":559,"type":23},"2026-07",{"name":561,"class":51},"Dr. Glenio Mizubuti (MD, PhD)",{"id":563,"slug":564,"hasResults":12,"nctId":565,"briefTitle":566,"officialTitle":567,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":568,"healthyVolunteers":12,"sex":61,"minAge":19,"maxAge":20,"enrollmentInfo":569,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":24,"phases":570,"briefSummary":571,"conditions":572,"keywords":4,"overallStatus":40,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":573,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":574,"startDateStruct":575,"completionDateStruct":577,"leadSponsor":578,"locationsCount":52},"100600382","effect-of-injection-duration-of-fascial-plane-blocks-on-block-success-100600382","NCT07096765","Effect of Injection Duration of Fascial Plane Blocks on Block Success","Effect of Injection Duration of Fascial Plane Blocks on Block Success and Postoperative Analgesia in Patients Undergoing Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Laparoscopic cholecystectomy surgery\n* Patients with ASA (American Society of Anaesthetists) scores I and III will be included.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Uncontrolled Arterial Hypertension\n* Uncontrolled Diabetes Mellitus,\n* Mental retardation\n* Antidepressant use\n* Metabolic disorders\n* Bleeding diathesis\n* Patients with a body mass index above 30",{"count":63,"type":23},[26],"This prospective observational study aims to evaluate the impact of injection duration during fascial plane blocks on block success and analgesic efficacy in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The hypothesis is that shorter injection durations increase injection pressure, potentially limiting local anesthetic spread, while longer durations facilitate broader anesthetic distribution.",[32],"2025-07-24",{"date":534,"type":44},{"date":576,"type":23},"2025-08-01",{"date":298,"type":23},{"name":579,"class":184},"Bursa Yuksek Ihtisas Training and Research Hospital",{"id":581,"slug":582,"hasResults":12,"nctId":583,"briefTitle":584,"officialTitle":585,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":586,"healthyVolunteers":12,"sex":61,"minAge":19,"maxAge":517,"enrollmentInfo":587,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":24,"phases":588,"briefSummary":589,"conditions":590,"keywords":4,"overallStatus":40,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":592,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":593,"startDateStruct":595,"completionDateStruct":596,"leadSponsor":598,"locationsCount":4},"100424595","lia-vs-lia--acb-ipack-block-for-total-knee-arthroplasty-100424595","NCT04808947","LIA vs. LIA + ACB-iPACK Block for Total Knee Arthroplasty","The Ideal Analgesic Technique for Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Randomized Comparison Between Local Infiltration Analgesia Alone or Combined With Adductor Canal and iPACK Blocks","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n1. ASA classification I-III\n2. BMI \\\u003C 35 kg\u002Fm2\n3. Having elective unilateral total knee arthroplasty\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n1. Bilateral knee surgery.\n2. Pre-existing neurological deficit or peripheral neuropathy in the lower the lower limbs\n3. Severe, poorly controlled cardiac conditions, significant arrhythmias, severe valvular heart diseases\n4. Severe, poorly controlled respiratory conditions (severe COPD, severe interstitial lung disease, severe \u002F poorly controlled asthma)\n5. Contraindication to regional anesthesia (e.g. bleeding diathesis, coagulopathy, sepsis, infection at the site of potential needle puncture on the posterior chest)\n6. Patient refusal\n7. Chronic pain disorder\n8. Chronic opioid use (≥30 mg oxycodone \u002F day)\n9. Contraindication (or allergy) to a component of multi-modal analgesia protocol\n10. Allergy to amide local anesthetics used in nerve blocks\n11. Contraindications to spinal anesthesia\n12. Significant psychiatric disorder that would preclude objective study assessment\n13. Pregnancy\n14. Inability to provide informed consent",{"count":129,"type":23},[26],"LIA is the mainstay of postoperative analgesia in patients having knee arthroplasty. The combination of ACB-iPACK blocks has also been proposed as an effective analgesic modality for total knee arthroplasty. However, whether combining these two modalities yields any important incremental analgesic benefit remains unclear. The investigators hypothesized that the addition of ACB and iPACK blocks to LIA will yield clinically important analgesic benefits compared to LIA alone in patients having total knee arthroplasty.",[32,591],"Neuromuscular Blockade","2025-07-14",{"date":594,"type":44},"2025-07-16",{"date":452,"type":23},{"date":597,"type":23},"2028-12",{"name":599,"class":51},"Women's College Hospital",{"id":601,"slug":602,"hasResults":12,"nctId":603,"briefTitle":604,"officialTitle":605,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":606,"healthyVolunteers":12,"sex":61,"minAge":19,"maxAge":20,"enrollmentInfo":607,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":24,"phases":608,"briefSummary":609,"conditions":610,"keywords":613,"overallStatus":40,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":592,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":617,"startDateStruct":618,"completionDateStruct":620,"leadSponsor":622,"locationsCount":52},"100360872","erector-spinae-block-vs-placebo-block-study-100360872","NCT03978780","Erector Spinae Block vs. Placebo Block Study","Quality of Recovery Scores Following Erector Spinae Block vs. Sham Block in Ambulatory Breast Cancer Surgery: A Randomised Controlled Trial","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* ASA classification: I-III\n* BMI \\\u003C 35 kg\u002Fm2\n* Day surgery procedure\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Prior ipsilateral breast surgery, excluding lumpectomy\n* Pre-existing neurological deficit or peripheral neuropathy involving the ipsilateral chest\n* Severe, poorly controlled cardiac conditions, significant arrhythmias, severe valvular heart diseases\n* Severe, poorly controlled respiratory conditions (severe COPD, severe interstitial lung disease, severe \u002F poorly controlled asthma)\n* Contraindication to regional anaesthesia (e.g. bleeding diathesis, coagulopathy, sepsis, infection at the site of potential needle puncture on the posterior chest)\n* Patient refusal\n* Chronic pain disorder\n* Chronic opioid use (≥30 mg oxycodone \u002F day)\n* Contraindication (or allergy) to a component of multi-modal analgesia protocol\n* Allergy to amide local anaesthetics used in nerve blocks\n* Contraindications to any of the components of the standardized general anaesthesia\n* Significant psychiatric disorder that would preclude objective study assessment\n* Pregnancy\u002F women with nursing infants\n* Unable to provide informed consent\n* Unable to speak and read English",{"count":129,"type":23},[26],"Regional anaesthesia combined with general anaesthesia has become common in the perioperative management of breast cancer surgery patients. Regional techniques have been recognised to provide excellent post-operative analgesia. It enhances multi-modal analgesia regimes while being opioid sparing, reducing incidence of post-operative nausea and vomiting and allowing earlier mobilisation\u002Fdischarge and improving treatment success. Therefore identifying the correct regional anaesthetic technique for this group of patients is important in providing optimum peri-operative care.",[611,32,612,591],"Breast Cancer","Regional Anesthesia",[614,615,616,317],"Spinae fascial plane block","Breast surgery","interfascial plane block",{"date":594,"type":44},{"date":619,"type":23},"2026-06",{"date":621,"type":23},"2028-01",{"name":599,"class":51},{"id":624,"slug":625,"hasResults":12,"nctId":626,"briefTitle":627,"officialTitle":628,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":629,"healthyVolunteers":162,"sex":61,"minAge":19,"maxAge":630,"enrollmentInfo":631,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":24,"phases":632,"briefSummary":633,"conditions":634,"keywords":4,"overallStatus":40,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":636,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":637,"startDateStruct":639,"completionDateStruct":641,"leadSponsor":643,"locationsCount":52},"100596509","tips-block-vs-iv-analgesia-for-postoperative-pain-after-knee-arthroscopy-100596509","NCT07046390","TIPS Block vs. IV Analgesia for Postoperative Pain After Knee Arthroscopy","Comparative Study Between Triple Injection Peri-Sartorius (TIPS) Block Versus Intravenous Analgesia for Postoperative Analgesia After Knee Arthroscopy","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n.Age 18-40 years undergoing knee arthroscopy. .Sex: Both sexes.\n\n.American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) Physical Status Class I and II\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n.Declining to give written informed consent. .History of allergy to the medications used in the study. .Contraindications to regional anesthesia (including patient refusal, coagulopathy and local infection).\n\nPsychiatric disorder. .American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) Physical Status Class III and IV.\n\n* Patients with body mass index (BMI) \\>35 kg\u002Fm2 .Neurological deficits or mobility-related disorders of the non-operated limb .\n* Moderate to severe hepatic , renal diseases and cardiac disease.","40 Years",{"count":164,"type":23},[26],"In this study participants are aiming to compare triple injection peri-sartorius (TIPS) block versus intravenous analgesia for postoperative analgesia after knee arthroscopy regarding efficacy of pain relief and early ambulation",[635,32],"Knee Arthroscopic Surgery","2025-06-29",{"date":638,"type":44},"2025-07-01",{"date":640,"type":23},"2025-07-20",{"date":642,"type":23},"2026-08-20",{"name":644,"class":51},"Ain Shams University",{"id":646,"slug":647,"hasResults":12,"nctId":648,"briefTitle":649,"officialTitle":650,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":651,"healthyVolunteers":12,"sex":61,"minAge":4,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":652,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":24,"phases":654,"briefSummary":655,"conditions":656,"keywords":658,"overallStatus":82,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":662,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":663,"startDateStruct":664,"completionDateStruct":666,"leadSponsor":668,"locationsCount":52},"100595635","self-guided-immersive-virtual-reality-versus-mannequin-based-simulators-to-teach-the-ultrasound-guided-supra-inguinal-fascia-iliaca-block-100595635","NCT07035015","Self-Guided Immersive Virtual Reality Versus Mannequin-based Simulators to Teach the Ultrasound-Guided Supra-Inguinal Fascia Iliaca Block","Self-Guided Immersive Virtual Reality Versus Mannequin-based Simulators to Teach the Ultrasound-Guided Supra-Inguinal Fascia Iliaca Block: A Non-inferiority Randomized Controlled Study","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Staff and trainees from anesthesiology, emergency medicine, and orthopedic surgery. All participants will be locally recruited within The Ottawa Hospital",{"count":653,"type":23},36,[26],"This research project aims to see if using immersive virtual reality (iVR) is as good as using traditional mannequins to teach medical staff how to perform a specific nerve block called an ultrasound-guided supra-inguinal fascia iliaca (SIFI) block. This nerve block is important for managing pain in patients with hip fractures, as it can improve recovery, shorten hospital stays, and reduce healthcare costs. Currently, not enough eligible hip fracture patients receive these beneficial nerve blocks.\n\nThe study will recruit 36 staff and trainees from anesthesiology, emergency medicine, and orthopedic surgery at The Ottawa Hospital. Participants will be randomly assigned to one of two groups. One group will learn the SIFI block using a newly developed iVR simulator that uses real human anatomy and allows for practice of needling and injecting. The other group will use traditional mannequin-based simulators.\n\nAll participants will receive educational materials and videos before their training. Their skills will be tested before the training, immediately after, and again one month later using a hybrid simulator (a combination of a mannequin and a soft embalmed human cadaver part). The main thing being measured is their skill level using a standardized scoring system. The study also wants to see if the iVR simulator is well-tolerated by users. The overall goal is to improve care for hip fracture patients through better, more accessible training for medical staff.",[32,657],"Hip Fracture Surgeries",[659,660,661],"Virtual Reality","Ultrasound-guided Regional Anesthesia","Simulation","2025-06-15",{"date":399,"type":44},{"date":665,"type":44},"2025-06-01",{"date":667,"type":23},"2025-11",{"name":669,"class":51},"The Ottawa Hospital",{"id":671,"slug":672,"hasResults":12,"nctId":673,"briefTitle":674,"officialTitle":675,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":676,"healthyVolunteers":12,"sex":61,"minAge":19,"maxAge":279,"enrollmentInfo":677,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":24,"phases":679,"briefSummary":680,"conditions":681,"keywords":683,"overallStatus":40,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":687,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":688,"startDateStruct":690,"completionDateStruct":692,"leadSponsor":693,"locationsCount":52},"100582542","a-comparative-study-of-combined-adductor-canal-and-interspace-between-popliteal-artery-and-knee-capsule-versus-combined-adductor-canal-and-genicular-nerve-in-total-knee-arthroplasty-100582542","NCT06864663","A Comparative Study of Combined Adductor Canal and Interspace Between Popliteal Artery and Knee Capsule Versus Combined Adductor Canal and Genicular Nerve in Total Knee Arthroplasty","A Comparative Study of Combined Ultrasound-Guided Adductor Canal Block and Interspace Between the Popliteal Artery and Capsule of the Knee (IPACK) Versus Combined Adductor Canal Block and Genicular Nerve Block Following Total Knee Arthroplasty","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n1. Patients American Society of anesthesiologists' physical status (ASA) I to III.\n2. Aged 18 to 70 years.\n3. Both sexes.\n4. Patients scheduled for total knee arthroplasty.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n1. Patient refusal\n2. ASA physical status IV or more.\n3. Patients with known allergy to any of the study drugs.\n4. Infection at the site of injection.\n5. Patients with neuromuscular disease.\n6. Presence of any coagulopathy.\n7. Patients with history of any psychiatric or cognitive disorder.\n8. patient with previous knee surgery.\n9. BMI more than 40 kg\u002Fm2.",{"count":678,"type":23},70,[26],"The aim of this study is to investigate the effectiveness of combined adductor canal block (ACB) with interspace between popliteal artery and the knee capsule (IPACK) versus combined ACB with genicular nerve block (GNB) for providing analgesia in knee arthroplasty. The investigators hypothesize that the analgesic efficacy of ACB combined with GNB will be non-inferior to that of ACB combined with IPACK. Additionally, the investigators aim to assess whether the combination of ACB and GNB results in a significantly lower occurrence of sensory or motor block affecting the tibial and common peroneal nerves compared to ACB and IPACK",[32,682],"Regional Anaesthesia",[203,684,685,686],"interspace between popliteal artery and capsule of knee","knee arthroplasty","genicular nerve block","2025-03-06",{"date":689,"type":44},"2025-03-07",{"date":691,"type":23},"2025-03-15",{"date":242,"type":23},{"name":644,"class":51}]