[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"health-studies-list:{\"conditionNormalized\":\"spinal-fusion-surgery\",\"overallStatus\":[\"RECRUITING\",\"AVAILABLE\",\"NOT_YET_RECRUITING\"],\"orderBy\":\"LastUpdateSubmitDate:desc\",\"size\":25,\"offset\":0}":3,"health-study-condition:spinal-fusion-surgery":64},{"pageToken":4,"total":5,"offset":6,"count":5,"results":7},null,4,0,[8,52,83,123],{"id":9,"slug":10,"hasResults":11,"nctId":12,"briefTitle":13,"officialTitle":14,"acronym":15,"eligibilityCriteria":16,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":17,"minAge":18,"maxAge":19,"enrollmentInfo":20,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":23,"phases":24,"briefSummary":26,"conditions":27,"keywords":31,"overallStatus":39,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":40,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":41,"startDateStruct":44,"completionDateStruct":46,"leadSponsor":48,"locationsCount":51},"100637970","tlip-block-versus-retrolaminar-block-on-quality-of-recovery-after-posterior-lumbar-spine-fusion-surgery-100637970",false,"NCT07609212","TLIP Block Versus Retrolaminar Block on Quality of Recovery After Posterior Lumbar Spine Fusion Surgery","Thoracolumbar Interfascial Plane Block Versus Retrolaminar Block on Quality of Recovery After Posterior Lumbar Spine Fusion Surgery: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial","TLIP-RLB-QoR","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Adult patients aged 18-65 years\n* Male and female patients\n* Scheduled for elective one- or two-level posterior lumbar instrumented fusion surgery under general anesthesia\n* ASA physical status I-III\n* BMI \\\u003C 35 kg\u002Fm²\n* Willing to participate and provide informed consent\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Patient refusal to participate\n* Coagulopathy or anticoagulant therapy\n* Infection at the site of block injection\n* Known allergy to local anesthetics\n* Chronic opioid use (\\>3 months)\n* Severe hepatic, renal, or cardiac dysfunction\n* Neurological deficits interfering with pain assessment\n* Pregnancy or lactation","ALL","18 Years","65 Years",{"count":21,"type":22},70,"ESTIMATED","INTERVENTIONAL",[25],"NA","This prospective randomized controlled study aims to compare the effects of ultrasound-guided thoracolumbar interfascial plane (TLIP) block versus retrolaminar block on postoperative quality of recovery in patients undergoing posterior lumbar spine fusion surgery. Despite advances in surgical techniques, lumbar spine fusion is associated with significant postoperative pain, which may delay recovery and increase opioid consumption.\n\nRecent approaches emphasize multimodal analgesia and opioid-sparing strategies, including regional anesthesia techniques. Interfascial plane blocks, such as TLIP and retrolaminar block, have gained attention due to their safety and effectiveness in targeting the dorsal rami of spinal nerves supplying the posterior spinal structures.\n\nThe primary outcome of this study is postoperative quality of recovery assessed using the Quality of Recovery-15 (QoR-15) questionnaire at 24 hours. Secondary outcomes include pain scores, opioid consumption, time to ambulation, time to oral intake, and postoperative complications.",[28,29,30],"Postoperative Pain","Spinal Fusion Surgery","Degenerative Lumbar Spine Diseases",[32,33,34,35,36,37,38],"TLIP Block","Retrolaminar Block","Regional Anesthesia","Quality of Recovery","QoR-15","Lumbar Spine Surgery","Postoperative Analgesia","NOT_YET_RECRUITING","2026-05-21",{"date":42,"type":43},"2026-05-27","ACTUAL",{"date":45,"type":22},"2026-06",{"date":47,"type":22},"2027-06",{"name":49,"class":50},"Assiut University","OTHER",1,{"id":53,"slug":54,"hasResults":11,"nctId":55,"briefTitle":56,"officialTitle":57,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":58,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":17,"minAge":18,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":59,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":61,"phases":4,"briefSummary":62,"conditions":63,"keywords":69,"overallStatus":74,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":75,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":76,"startDateStruct":78,"completionDateStruct":79,"leadSponsor":81,"locationsCount":51},"100640534","comparison-of-hemodynamic-responses-during-anesthesia-induction-using-eleveld-and-schnider-100640534","NCT07586189","Comparison of Hemodynamic Responses During Anesthesia Induction Using Eleveld and Schnider","Comparison of Hemodynamic Responses During Anesthesia Induction Using Eleveld and Schnider Target-Controlled Infusion Models. A Randomized Trial","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Patients scheduled for elective spinal surgery under general anesthesia\n* Patients who will undergo surgery at the Neurosurgery Department of Istanbul University, Istanbul Faculty of Medicine\n* Patients aged 18 years or older\n* Patients who provide written informed consent to participate in the study\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Patients with uncontrolled hypertension\n* Patients with uncontrolled diabetes mellitus\n* Patients younger than 18 years of age\n* Patients who do not provide informed consent to participate in the study",{"count":60,"type":22},50,"OBSERVATIONAL","This randomized prospective study aims to compare the effects of two target-controlled infusion models, the Schnider and Eleveld models, on anesthetic depth and hemodynamic responses during anesthesia induction in adult patients undergoing spinal surgery.\n\nPatients scheduled for spinal surgery will be randomized into either the Schnider or Eleveld group. Before induction, standard monitoring will be applied, including electrocardiography, peripheral oxygen saturation, invasive arterial blood pressure monitoring, heart rate monitoring, and bispectral index monitoring. Anesthesia induction will be performed with fentanyl 2 mcg\u002Fkg, rocuronium 0.6 mg\u002Fkg, and propofol administered by target-controlled infusion with an effect-site target concentration of 3 mcg\u002FmL according to the allocated pharmacokinetic model.\n\nHemodynamic parameters and bispectral index values will be recorded before induction and at the 1st, 3rd, 5th, and 10th minutes after induction. Additional parameters, including time to BIS below 40, time to delta activity, burst suppression duration, total propofol dose during the first 5 minutes, need for additional propofol, hemodynamic response to intubation, vasopressor requirement within the first 10 minutes, and use of esmolol, will also be documented. The primary aim is to evaluate whether the Schnider and Eleveld models differ in terms of induction-related hemodynamic stability and anesthetic depth during the early induction period.",[64,65,66,67,68],"Spinal (Fusion) Surgery","Total Intravenous Anesthesia","Target Controlled Infusion of Propofol","Anesthesia Depth Monitoring","BIS-EEG",[70,71,72,73],"spinal surgery","total intravenous anesthesia","target controlled infusion","anesthesia depth monitoring","RECRUITING","2026-05-18",{"date":77,"type":43},"2026-05-20",{"date":75,"type":43},{"date":80,"type":22},"2026-08-30",{"name":82,"class":50},"Istanbul University",{"id":84,"slug":85,"hasResults":11,"nctId":86,"briefTitle":87,"officialTitle":87,"acronym":88,"eligibilityCriteria":89,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":17,"minAge":18,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":90,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":23,"phases":91,"briefSummary":92,"conditions":93,"keywords":105,"overallStatus":74,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":114,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":115,"startDateStruct":117,"completionDateStruct":119,"leadSponsor":121,"locationsCount":51},"100609711","trans-auricular-stimulation-for-postoperative-inflammation-in-spine-surgery-100609711","NCT07218133","Trans-Auricular Stimulation for Postoperative Inflammation in Spine Surgery","TAPIS","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Long-segment spinal fusions (defined as constructs spanning at least L2-pelvis for thoracolumbar fusions or C2-T2 for cervical fusions)\n* Ability to undergo a reliable neurologic examination and pain assessments\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Patients \\\u003C18 years of age\n* Shorter-segment spinal fusions than those described above\n* Undergoing current active cancer therapy\n* Undergoing treatment with immunosuppressive drugs\n* Additional spinal surgery within past 6 months\n* Sustained bradycardia or presence of pacemaker\n* History of substance abuse",{"count":60,"type":22},[25],"This study is a randomized controlled trial that will evaluate the effect of non-invasive auricular vagal nerve stimulation on inflammatory markers, glycemic control, postoperative pain, and inflammation-related clinical outcomes after long-segment spinal fusion surgeries when compared to current accepted management.",[94,95,96,97,98,99,100,101,102,64,103,104],"Spinal Fusion","Hyperglycemia","Postoperative Pain Management","Postoperative Care","Spine Disease","Neurologic Deficits","Neurological Disorder","Inflammation","Spine Condition","Cytokine Levels","Spine Fusion",[106,107,108,109,110,111,112,113],"spinal fusion","postoperative pain","glycemic control","inflammation","vagal nerve stimulation","postoperative complications","cytokine","spine surgery","2026-02-17",{"date":116,"type":43},"2026-02-20",{"date":118,"type":43},"2025-10-08",{"date":120,"type":22},"2026-12",{"name":122,"class":50},"Alexander T. Yahanda",{"id":124,"slug":125,"hasResults":11,"nctId":126,"briefTitle":127,"officialTitle":128,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":129,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":17,"minAge":18,"maxAge":130,"enrollmentInfo":131,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":61,"phases":4,"briefSummary":133,"conditions":134,"keywords":4,"overallStatus":39,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":136,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":137,"startDateStruct":139,"completionDateStruct":141,"leadSponsor":143,"locationsCount":4},"100622933","estimation-of-increased-surgical-drainage-output-following-thoracolumbar-surgery-100622933","NCT07390058","ESTIMATION OF INCREASED SURGICAL DRAINAGE OUTPUT FOLLOWING THORACOLUMBAR SURGERY","ESTIMATION OF INCREASED SURGICAL DRAINAGE OUTPUT FOLLOWING THORACOLUMBAR SURGERY: DRAINAGE VOLUME PREDICTION SCORE","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Patients aged 18-80 participated in the study.\n* Patients who have undergone long segment spinal surgery (2 or more segments).\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Patients with developing dural rupture,\n* Patients under 18 or over 80 years of age,\n* Patients undergoing revision surgery,\n* Patients undergoing short segment spinal fusion,\n* Patients using drains other than standard-volume closed suction drainage,\n* Patients with missing data,\n* Patients experiencing mechanical problems with the drain.","80 Years",{"count":132,"type":22},326,"In a study involving neurosurgeons worldwide, it was reported that most surgeons preferred the use of drains (186, 80.5%) and subfascial drains (169, 73.2%), with 52.87% of surgeons discontinuing drains based on time and 27.7% based on drainage volume (Cabrera et al. 2025). While the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocol does not recommend routine wound drainage for short-segment lumbar fusion surgery (Evidence Level Moderate, Recommendation Strength), the timing of drainage termination is based on drainage output (if drainage is below 50 ml) or based on postoperative days (day 2) (Han et al., 2024; Smith et al., 2019). We believe that further studies are needed to determine which patient groups require drains preoperatively and how long drains should remain in place postoperatively. This study, which aims to predict the amount of drainage during the perioperative period, will attempt to predict both the selective use of drains and how long to wait before discontinuing drainage in patients with drains. Lumbar subcutaneous fat thickness, previously used as a predictor of surgical site infections, will be tested for the first time in our study to determine whether it is a predictor of drainage output.",[135,64],"Drainage","2026-01-29",{"date":138,"type":43},"2026-02-05",{"date":140,"type":22},"2026-03-01",{"date":142,"type":22},"2026-09-01",{"name":144,"class":50},"AKİF BULUT"]