Regional AnesthesiaNCT02370472
Evaluation of a New Training Model for Ultrasound Guided Regional Anesthesia - A Feasibility Study
A study testing tool developed using cameras and a computer in people with Regional Anesthesia, run by Milton S. Hershey Medical Center at 1 site in United States.
Trial summary
The use of Ultrasound Guided Regional Anaesthesia (USRA) has increased over the last decade. Theoretically, ultrasound imaging may increase efficacy and safety by allowing visualization of the needle pathway and local anaesthetic spread around the nerve. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 25 to 75 yearsHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Regional Anesthesia
- What is being tested?
- tool developed using cameras and a computer
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 30 participants
- Where
- 1 siteUnited States
- Study dates
- Jul 2014to Feb 2015
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 25 to 75 years
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Health Care professional
Who cannot join
- None
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
United States1 site
Penn State Hershey Medical Center
Hershey, Pennsylvania, 17033
About this study
The use of Ultrasound Guided Regional Anaesthesia (USRA) has increased over the last decade. Theoretically, ultrasound imaging may increase efficacy and safety by allowing visualization of the needle pathway and local anaesthetic spread around the nerve. In addition to knowledge of anatomy and general principles of ultrasonography, USRA requires learning new skills such as image interpretation, needle-beam alignment, and needle trajectory tracking. The hand-eye coordination required during needle advancement requires practice to master because the needle must be properly aligned with the ultrasound probe in order to maintain the needle path in the beam at all times. Adding to the difficulty, hand and needle movements can occur in three axes, but an ultrasound image is seen in only two dimensions. Since the ability to acquire the necessary skills to perform USRA is subjective and not yet validated, it is difficult to recommend a single, effective training pathway.
Currently, the only method of supervised training before performing an USRA procedure on an actual patient involves practicing needle insertion in a phantom or cadaver. Studies assessing the impact of learning using these methods are lacking. It is possible that some practitioners may choose alternative one-off learning methods. Such methods are not standardized and are thus difficult to evaluate.
Read the detailed description
This was a single site, prospective, pre-test-post-test, randomized study conducted after Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval. Thirty subjects, including medical students, practicing anaesthesiologists and anaesthesia residents in training at the Penn State Hershey Medical Center, were recruited by formal email invitation to participate. Written consent was obtained from each participant before their inclusion in the study and each participant completed a pre-study form. Once enrolled in the study, participants were given 10 minutes to familiarize themselves with both the ultrasound equipment (SonoSite, MTurbo, Bothell, WA, USA) and the phantom model (MiniSim™ Upper Extremity Series, Life tech Inc., Stafford, Texas, USA). They also viewed a pre-recorded video demonstrating the task they were to perform. As a pre-test, participants performed the required Needle Insertion Accuracy (NIA) task 3 consecutive times and were assessed using a scoring form adapted from the Mayo Clinic. After completing the pre-test, participants were randomly divided into two groups, experimental and control, by a computer-generated randomization list (SAS Institute, Cary, NC). Participants were blinded to their group assignment.
Previously, we have reported details of the new learning tool. Briefly, all spatial movements occur in three dimensions which can be labeled the x-axis, the y-axis and the z-axis. A video camera records movement in two axes. By placing a second video camera at 90 degrees to the first camera, the third axis can be recorded as well as one axis in common with the first camera. Video recordings are stored electronically on a hard-drive and can be reviewed individually or in combination, at normal speed, or slowed if necessary. Still images can also be obtained.
The experimental group was allowed to practice the same pre-test task using the same ultrasound machine and phantom model. On a single computer screen, they were able to visualize their hand and needle movements along with the position of the ultrasound probe. The control group was allowed to practice the same pre-test task using the same ultrasound machine and phantom model but without the added visual aid. Both groups were allowed to practice their pre-test tasks for a maximum of 30 minutes, and recorded their self-assessment as proficient or not proficient at that time. Both groups then performed the post-test, which was the same task used for the pre-test, and each trainee was evaluated using the same scoring tool. To avoid subjective variations and inter-rater variability, all evaluations were recorded by a single blinded investigator.
Statistical analysis Pre- and post-test mean scores (ranging from 5 to15) were analyzed using statistical methods to determine whether this new learning tool improved NIA skills required with USRA. Pre-test and post-test scores (ranging from 5 to 15) were obtained in triplicate and averaged to produce a representative assessment for each participant. The primary endpoint was change in NIA score from baseline, i.e., the score difference obtained by subtracting the mean pre-test score from the mean post-test score. A sample size of 15 subjects per group (experimental and control) provides 80% power to detect an effect size of 1, based on a two-sided t-test with a 5% error probability (calculated using G*Power version 3.1). Analysis of the primary endpoint utilized a two-sided, two-sample t-test at the 5% level of significance. Secondary analyses evaluated the intervention effect on novice trainees, and trainees with prior USRA experience. Score differences for individual NIA skills (movement, alignment, approach, target, location) were also analyzed.
- Conditions
- Regional Anesthesia
- Being tested
- tool developed using cameras and a computer
- Keywords
- Ultrasound, Image, Learning Tool, Ultrasound Guide Procedures, Simulated Setting
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
tool developed using cameras and a computerOther
cameras allowing subject to be able to visualize hand and needle movements as well s the position of the transducers along with the image from the ultrasound on a computer screen
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| control group | No intervention | complete pre-study form 10 minute familiarization time with equipment view video demonstration of task perform task 3 times assessed using scoring form - pretest assigned to group practice task again for 30 minutes proficiency noted final evaluation |
| Experimental | Experimental | complete pre-study form 10 minute familiarization time with equipment view video demonstration of task perform task 3 times assessed using scoring form - pretest assigned to group practice task again for 30 minutes - subjects will use tool developed using cameras and a computer to visualize hand and needle movements as well as the position of the transducers along with the image from the ultrasound on a computer screen proficiency belief noted final evaluation Receives: Other: tool developed using cameras and a computer |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Needle image accuracy score difference
The experimental group was allowed to practice the same pre-test task using the same ultrasound machine and phantom model. On a single computer screen, they were able to visualise their hand and needle movements along with the position of the ultrasound probe. The control group was allowed to practice the same pre-test task using the same ultrasound machine and phantom model but without the added visual aid. Both groups were allowed to practice their pre-test tasks for a maximum of 30 minutes
Measured: 30 minutes
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted25 Feb 2015 (estimated)
- Study startJul 2014
- Primary completionFeb 2015
- Study completionFeb 2015
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (4)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Regional AnesthesiaStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by Milton S. Hershey Medical CenterThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Other
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 30 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Milton S. Hershey Medical Center
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Sanjib Adhikary, Milton S. Hershey Medical Center
- Investigators
- Sanjib Adhikary, MB BS MD, Principal investigator, Milton S. Hershey Medical Center
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT02370472
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 38067
- Status last verified
- Mar 2018
- First submitted
- 18 Feb 2015
- Last updated
- 2 Mar 2018
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
Publications
Sites BD, Chan VW, Neal JM, Weller R, Grau T, Koscielniak-Nielsen ZJ, Ivani G. The American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine and the European Society of Regional Anaesthesia and Pain Therapy joint committee recommendations for education and training in ultrasound-guided regional anesthesia. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2010 Mar-Apr;35(2 Suppl):S74-80. doi: 10.1097/AAP.0b013e3181d34ff5.
PubMed 20216029Ramlogan R, Manickam B, Chan VW, Liang L, Adhikary SD, Liguori GA, Hargett MJ, Brull R. Challenges and training tools associated with the practice of ultrasound-guided regional anesthesia: a survey of the American society of regional anesthesia and pain medicine. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2010 Mar-Apr;35(2):224-6. doi: 10.1097/AAP.0b013e3181c69c94. No abstract available.
PubMed 20216042Adhikary SD, Hadzic A, McQuillan PM. Simulator for teaching hand-eye coordination during ultrasound-guided regional anaesthesia. Br J Anaesth. 2013 Nov;111(5):844-5. doi: 10.1093/bja/aet364. No abstract available.
PubMed 24108733Smith HM, Kopp SL, Jacob AK, Torsher LC, Hebl JR. Designing and implementing a comprehensive learner-centered regional anesthesia curriculum. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2009 Mar-Apr;34(2):88-94. doi: 10.1097/AAP.0b013e31819e734f. No abstract available.
PubMed 19282705
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 2 Mar 2018. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Evaluation of a New Training Model for Ultrasound Guided Regional Anesthesia - A Feasibility Study
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT02370472
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- 38067
- Conditions
- Regional Anesthesia
- Keywords
- Ultrasound, Image, Learning Tool, Ultrasound Guide Procedures, Simulated Setting
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 30 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Milton S. Hershey Medical CenterUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- Jul 2014 (actual)
- Primary completion
- Feb 2015 (actual)
- Study completion
- Feb 2015 (actual)
- First posted
- 25 Feb 2015 (estimated)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
The use of Ultrasound Guided Regional Anaesthesia (USRA) has increased over the last decade. Theoretically, ultrasound imaging may increase efficacy and safety by allowing visualization of the needle pathway and local anaesthetic spread around the nerve. In addition to knowledge of anatomy and general principles of ultrasonography, USRA requires learning new skills such as image interpretation, needle-beam alignment, and needle trajectory tracking. The hand-eye coordination required during needle advancement requires practice to master because the needle must be properly aligned with the ultrasound probe in order to maintain the needle path in the beam at all times. Adding to the difficulty, hand and needle movements can occur in three axes, but an ultrasound image is seen in only two dimensions. Since the ability to acquire the necessary skills to perform USRA is subjective and not yet validated, it is difficult to recommend a single, effective training pathway.
Currently, the only method of supervised training before performing an USRA procedure on an actual patient involves practicing needle insertion in a phantom or cadaver. Studies assessing the impact of learning using these methods are lacking. It is possible that some practitioners may choose alternative one-off learning methods. Such methods are not standardized and are thus difficult to evaluate.
Detailed description
This was a single site, prospective, pre-test-post-test, randomized study conducted after Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval. Thirty subjects, including medical students, practicing anaesthesiologists and anaesthesia residents in training at the Penn State Hershey Medical Center, were recruited by formal email invitation to participate. Written consent was obtained from each participant before their inclusion in the study and each participant completed a pre-study form. Once enrolled in the study, participants were given 10 minutes to familiarize themselves with both the ultrasound equipment (SonoSite, MTurbo, Bothell, WA, USA) and the phantom model (MiniSim™ Upper Extremity Series, Life tech Inc., Stafford, Texas, USA). They also viewed a pre-recorded video demonstrating the task they were to perform. As a pre-test, participants performed the required Needle Insertion Accuracy (NIA) task 3 consecutive times and were assessed using a scoring form adapted from the Mayo Clinic. After completing the pre-test, participants were randomly divided into two groups, experimental and control, by a computer-generated randomization list (SAS Institute, Cary, NC). Participants were blinded to their group assignment.
Previously, we have reported details of the new learning tool. Briefly, all spatial movements occur in three dimensions which can be labeled the x-axis, the y-axis and the z-axis. A video camera records movement in two axes. By placing a second video camera at 90 degrees to the first camera, the third axis can be recorded as well as one axis in common with the first camera. Video recordings are stored electronically on a hard-drive and can be reviewed individually or in combination, at normal speed, or slowed if necessary. Still images can also be obtained.
The experimental group was allowed to practice the same pre-test task using the same ultrasound machine and phantom model. On a single computer screen, they were able to visualize their hand and needle movements along with the position of the ultrasound probe. The control group was allowed to practice the same pre-test task using the same ultrasound machine and phantom model but without the added visual aid. Both groups were allowed to practice their pre-test tasks for a maximum of 30 minutes, and recorded their self-assessment as proficient or not proficient at that time. Both groups then performed the post-test, which was the same task used for the pre-test, and each trainee was evaluated using the same scoring tool. To avoid subjective variations and inter-rater variability, all evaluations were recorded by a single blinded investigator.
Statistical analysis Pre- and post-test mean scores (ranging from 5 to15) were analyzed using statistical methods to determine whether this new learning tool improved NIA skills required with USRA. Pre-test and post-test scores (ranging from 5 to 15) were obtained in triplicate and averaged to produce a representative assessment for each participant. The primary endpoint was change in NIA score from baseline, i.e., the score difference obtained by subtracting the mean pre-test score from the mean post-test score. A sample size of 15 subjects per group (experimental and control) provides 80% power to detect an effect size of 1, based on a two-sided t-test with a 5% error probability (calculated using G*Power version 3.1). Analysis of the primary endpoint utilized a two-sided, two-sample t-test at the 5% level of significance. Secondary analyses evaluated the intervention effect on novice trainees, and trainees with prior USRA experience. Score differences for individual NIA skills (movement, alignment, approach, target, location) were also analyzed.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Other
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| control group | No intervention | –complete pre-study form 10 minute familiarization time with equipment view video demonstration of task perform task 3 times assessed using scoring form - pretest assigned to group practice task again for 30 minutes proficiency noted final evaluation |
| Experimental | Experimental | Other: tool developed using cameras and a computercomplete pre-study form 10 minute familiarization time with equipment view video demonstration of task perform task 3 times assessed using scoring form - pretest assigned to group practice task again for 30 minutes - subjects will use tool developed using cameras and a computer to visualize hand and needle movements as well as the position of the transducers along with the image from the ultrasound on a computer screen proficiency belief noted final evaluation |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 25 to 75 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (1 listed)
- Health Care professional
Key exclusion criteria (1 listed)
- None
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| tool developed using cameras and a computercameras allowing subject to be able to visualize hand and needle movements as well s the position of the transducers along with the image from the ultrasound on a computer screen | Other | Experimental |
Primary outcome
Needle image accuracy score difference
Time frame: 30 minutes
The experimental group was allowed to practice the same pre-test task using the same ultrasound machine and phantom model. On a single computer screen, they were able to visualise their hand and needle movements along with the position of the ultrasound probe. The control group was allowed to practice the same pre-test task using the same ultrasound machine and phantom model but without the added visual aid. Both groups were allowed to practice their pre-test tasks for a maximum of 30 minutes
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 2 Mar 2018.
- Results publication: PubMed 20216029Sites BD, Chan VW, Neal JM, Weller R, Grau T, Koscielniak-Nielsen ZJ, Ivani G. The American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine and the European Society of Regional Anaesthesia and Pain Therapy joint committee recommendations for education and training in ultrasound-guided regional anesthesia. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2010 Mar-Apr;35(2 Suppl):S74-80. doi: 10.1097/AAP.0b013e3181d34ff5.
- Results publication: PubMed 20216042Ramlogan R, Manickam B, Chan VW, Liang L, Adhikary SD, Liguori GA, Hargett MJ, Brull R. Challenges and training tools associated with the practice of ultrasound-guided regional anesthesia: a survey of the American society of regional anesthesia and pain medicine. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2010 Mar-Apr;35(2):224-6. doi: 10.1097/AAP.0b013e3181c69c94. No abstract available.
- Results publication: PubMed 24108733Adhikary SD, Hadzic A, McQuillan PM. Simulator for teaching hand-eye coordination during ultrasound-guided regional anaesthesia. Br J Anaesth. 2013 Nov;111(5):844-5. doi: 10.1093/bja/aet364. No abstract available.
- Results publication: PubMed 19282705Smith HM, Kopp SL, Jacob AK, Torsher LC, Hebl JR. Designing and implementing a comprehensive learner-centered regional anesthesia curriculum. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2009 Mar-Apr;34(2):88-94. doi: 10.1097/AAP.0b013e31819e734f. No abstract available.
Related trials for Regional Anesthesia
RecruitingPhase 3
A Study of Changes to Prostate Procedures
Prostate Cancer
Not yet recruiting
Magnesium Sulphate as an Adjuvant in Combined Costoclavicular Block and Suprascapular Block Versus Interscalene Block for Ambulatory Shoulder Arthroscopy
Postoperative Pain, Shoulder Arthroscopy
Recruiting
Comparison of Spinal Anesthesia With Intrathecal Morphine Versus PENG Block With or Without Dexamethasone in Hip Arthroplasty
Arthropathy of Hip, Hip Osteoarthritis
Not yet recruiting
Use of a Virtual Reality Headset During Prostate Biopsy Under Local Anesthesia to Improve the Patient's Experience
Prostate Biopsy
Not yet recruiting
Lumbar Erector Spinae Plane Block Versus PENG Block for Hip Fracture Surgery
Femur Neck Fracture, Hip Fractures
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Sanjib Adhikary, MB BS MD principal investigator
Milton S. Hershey Medical Center
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing tool developed using cameras and a computer in people with Regional Anesthesia, run by Milton S. Hershey Medical Center at 1 site in United States.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 1 inclusion and 1 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 2 Mar 2018. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in United States. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Needle image accuracy score difference (time frame: 30 minutes). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT02370472, which also lists 4 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 2 Mar 2018.