AzTrials
AzTrials

AnesthesiaPhase 3NCT02658721

Effects of Systemic or Adjunct Tramadol Addition to Lidocaine Used for IVRA in Patients Undergoing Hand Surgery

A Phase 3 study testing Lidocaine, lidocaine+adjunct tramadol and lidocaine+systemic tramadol in people with Anesthesia, run by Bagcilar Training and Research Hospital.

Completed

Finished. The study has ended and is not enrolling. Results may be posted on the official record.

Official record
Search all trials

Trial summary

Intravenous regional anesthesia (IVRA) is used in outpatient hand surgery as an easily applicable and cost-effective technique with clinical advantages. Nevertheless, IVRA has some disadvantages including anesthetic toxicity, slow-onset, poor muscle relaxation, tourniquet pain, and minimal postoperative pain relief. Read more about this study

Who is it for?
Ages 18 to 65 years
Conditions the study is for
Anesthesia
What is being tested?
Lidocaine, lidocaine+adjunct tramadol and lidocaine+systemic tramadol
Type of treatment
Injection or infusion
Could I receive a placebo?
No, everyone receives an active treatment
How many people
60 participants
Where
No sites listed yet
Study dates
Jan 2013to Aug 2013
Phase
Phase 3
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 18 to 65 years
  • All sexes
  • No healthy volunteers
  • Adult, Older adult

Who may be able to join

  • American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) I-II patients who were planned to undergo hand surgery.

Who cannot join

  • Patients with Raynaud's disease, those with sickle-cell anemia, and those receiving any drug for history of allergy

About this study

Official title: Effects of Addition of Systemic Tramadol or Adjunct Tramadol to Lidocaine Used for Intravenous Regional Anesthesia in Patients Undergoing Hand Surgery

Intravenous regional anesthesia (IVRA) is used in outpatient hand surgery as an easily applicable and cost-effective technique with clinical advantages. Nevertheless, IVRA has some disadvantages including anesthetic toxicity, slow-onset, poor muscle relaxation, tourniquet pain, and minimal postoperative pain relief. Providing an ideal anesthesia by overcoming these disadvantages is possible with the addition of some adjunct agents into local anesthetic substances. One of these adjunct agents used for IVRA is tramadol, a synthetic analgesic having opioid and nonopioid characteristics. The present study aimed to investigate the effects of addition of systemic tramadol or adjunct tramadol to lidocaine for IVRA in patients undergoing hand surgery..

Read the detailed description

The present study included American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) I-II patients (n=60) who were planned to undergo hand surgery. Patients with Raynaud's disease, those with sickle-cell anemia, and those receiving any drug for history of allergy were excluded. Approval of the ethics committee and informed consents of the patients were obtained for the study.

According to a computer-generated randomization list, the patients were divided into three groups, containing 20 subjects in each. In the first group, Lidocaine (LDC)+Adjunct Tramadol (TRA), IVRA was performed with 3 mg/kg lidocaine (10% Lidocaine) plus 50 mg tramadol, which were administered after diluting with saline to 40 mL. While performing IVRA, 30 mL saline was simultaneously administered to the systemic circulation. In the second group, lidocaine (LDC)+systemic tramadol (SysTRA), IVRA was performed with 3 mg/kg lidocaine, which was diluted with saline to 40 mL. While performing IVRA, 50 mg tramadol diluted with saline to 30 mL was simultaneously administered to the systemic circulation. In the third group (LDC group), IVRA was performed with 3 mg/kg lidocaine, which was diluted with saline to 40 mL. While performing IVRA, 30 mL saline was simultaneously administered to the systemic circulation. All solutions were prepared by resident anesthesiologists, who were blinded to the study, using identical injectors.

The patients received premedication 45 min before the surgery with intramuscular 0.07 mg/kg midazolam and 0.01 mg/kg atropine. Two intravenous cannulas, one into the vein in the dorsal aspect of the hand that would undergo surgery and the other into the vein in the dorsal aspect of the opposite hand, were inserted for crystalloid infusion. The arm that would undergo surgery was elevated for 2 min and Esmarch's bandage was used to control blood flow. A double pneumatic tourniquet was placed around the upper arm and the proximal cuff was inflated to 250 mmHg. The absence of radial artery pulse in the arm isolated from the circulation was confirmed by the disappearance of pulse oximeter waves in the index finger of the same hand. The solutions, which were pre-prepared according to the groups defined above, were injected to the patients for over 90 s by an anesthesiologist blinded to the contents of drugs.

After the injection, the sensorial block was assessed every 30 s until the initiation of surgery by pinprick test using 22 gauge needle on the radial, ulnar and median nerve stimulation areas of the hand and of the anterior surface of the arm. Motor function was checked by asking the patient to bring the wrist and finger to extension and flexion and the time of complete motor block was recorded when spontaneous movement was impossible. The time elapsed from the injection of the study drug until the sensorial block was provided in all stimulation areas was recorded as the onset time of sensorial block. Likewise, the time elapsed from the injection of the study drug until achieving the complete motor block was recorded as the onset time of motor block. After achieving complete motor block and sensorial block, the distal tourniquet was inflated to 250 mmHg, the proximal tourniquet was deflated, and the surgical procedure was initiated. Mean arterial pressure (MAP), oxygen saturation (SpO2), and heart rate (HR) were monitored during the surgery, before and after tourniquet application, and until disappearance of anesthesia after deflating the tourniquet.

Pain level of the patients was assessed by 10 cm visual analogue scale (VAS; 0=no pain; 10=very severe pain). VAS scores were recorded before and after tourniquet application as well as at 5th, 10th, 15th, 20th, 30th, 40th, and 50th min during the surgery. If the patient had a VAS score of >4 and if required, 1 μg/kg fentanyl was administered for analgesia and the dosage and time were recorded.

The tourniquet was not deflated earlier than 30 min and it was not inflated more than 2 h. Tourniquet deflation after the surgery was performed by periodic deflation technique. The time of sensorial recovery was recorded (the time elapsed from the deflation of tourniquet to the highest pain felt by the patient via pinprick test performed every 30 s in all stimulation areas). The time of motor block recovery (time elapsed from the deflation of tourniquet to the spontaneous movement of the fingers) was also recorded.

The patients were monitored in the postoperative care unit for the first 2 h and then in the observation room for 24 h by anesthesiologists who were blinded to the study. MAP, HR, SpO2 monitoring and VAS measurement were performed at the postoperative 1st, 2nd, 4th, 6th, 12th, and 24th h. The patients with a VAS score of >4 were administered with 75 mg diclofenac sodium via intramuscular route. Analgesia requirement was recorded as duration and dosage.

The patients were monitored for intraoperative and postoperative complications. In the event of hypotension (systolic arterial pressure <90 mmHg or a decrease of more than 50 mmHg from the normal value) during the surgery, 5 mg intravenous ephedrine was administered. In case of bradycardia (HR <50/min), 0.5 mg intravenous atropine was administered. Intravenous 4 mg ondansetron was administered for nausea and vomiting and oxygen was supplied via a facial mask when SpO2 decreased by more than 91%.

An anesthesiologist and a surgeon, who were blinded to the content of study drug, assessed the quality of anesthesia at the end of surgery as follows: 4: excellent, patient does not complain; 3: good, patient complains a little, no need for supplemental analgesic; 2: moderate, patient complains, need for supplemental analgesic; 1: failed, need for general anesthesia.

The Predictive Analytics Software (PASW) version 18.0 for Windows program (SPSS Inc., Chicago, USA) was used for statistical analysis. Descriptive statistics were expressed as number and percentage for categorical variables and as mean, standard deviation, median, the 25th percentile (Q1: the first quartile), and the 75th percentile (Q3: the third quartile) for numerical variables. For numerical variables, independent multiple group comparisons were performed by Kruskal-Wallis test for non-normally distributed data and by t-test for normally distributed data. Mann-Whitney U test with Bonferroni correction was used for subgroup analysis of non-normally distributed numerical variables. For multiple group comparisons of categorical variables, Chi-square test statistics was used in case the assumption of chi-square test was met, whereas Fisher's Exact test was used in case the assumption of chi-square test was not met. A p value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant.

With the assumption that the difference in the VAS score at the 5th min between the two surgical techniques being 1 and the expected standard deviation for two groups being 0.9, it was estimated to include 20 patients in the groups for which the least difference was expected. The statistical significance level was calculated as 0.015 owing to the presence of 3 groups and with the prediction that repeated measurement analysis would be performed assuming that the Bonferroni correction would be used. The power of the present study was 80% with these calculations.

Conditions
Anesthesia
Being tested
Lidocaine, lidocaine+adjunct tramadol, lidocaine+systemic tramadol, Fentanyl, Atropine
Keywords
Systemic Tramadol, Adjunct Tramadol, Lidocain

What participants receive

What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.

  • LidocaineDrug

  • lidocaine+adjunct tramadolDrug

    Also called tramadol

    IVRA was performed with 3 mg/kg lidocaine (10% Lidocaine) plus 50 mg tramadol, which were administered after diluting with saline to 40 mL. While performing IVRA, 30 mL saline was simultaneously administered to the systemic circulation

  • lidocaine+systemic tramadolDrug

    Also called tramadol

    IVRA was performed with 3 mg/kg lidocaine, which was diluted with saline to 40 mL. While performing IVRA, 50 mg tramadol diluted with saline to 30 mL was simultaneously administered to the systemic circulation

  • FentanylDrug

    If the patient had a VAS score of >4 and if required, 1 μg/kg fentanyl was administered for analgesia and the dosage and time were recorded.

  • AtropineDrug

    The patients received premedication 45 min before the surgery with intramuscular 0.01 mg/kg atropine.

    In case of bradycardia (HR <50/min), 0.5 mg intravenous atropine was administered.

  • MidazolamDrug

    The patients received premedication 45 min before the surgery with intramuscular 0.07 mg/kg midazolam

  • Diclofenac sodiumDrug

    The patients with a VAS score of >4 were administered with 75 mg diclofenac sodium via intramuscular route.

  • EphedrineDrug

    In the event of hypotension (systolic arterial pressure <90 mmHg or a decrease of more than 50 mmHg from the normal value) during the surgery, 5 mg intravenous ephedrine was administered.

  • OndansetronDrug

    Intravenous 4 mg ondansetron was administered for nausea and vomiting.

Study groups in NCT02658721
Study groupRoleWhat they receive
lidocaine+adjunct tramadolExperimentalIn the first group (LDC+TRA group), IVRA was performed with 3 mg/kg lidocaine (10% Lidocaine) plus 50 mg tramadol, which were administered after diluting with saline to 40 mL. While performing IVRA, 30 mL saline was simultaneously administered to the systemic circulation.
Receives: Drug: lidocaine+adjunct tramadol; Drug: Fentanyl; Drug: Atropine; Drug: Midazolam; Drug: Diclofenac sodium; Drug: Ephedrine; Drug: Ondansetron
lidocaine+systemic tramadolExperimentalIn the second group (LDC+SysTRA group), IVRA was performed with 3 mg/kg lidocaine, which was diluted with saline to 40 mL. While performing IVRA, 50 mg tramadol diluted with saline to 30 mL was simultaneously administered to the systemic circulation.
Receives: Drug: lidocaine+systemic tramadol; Drug: Fentanyl; Drug: Atropine; Drug: Midazolam; Drug: Diclofenac sodium; Drug: Ephedrine; Drug: Ondansetron
lidocaineActive comparatorIn the third group (LDC group), IVRA was performed with 3 mg/kg lidocaine, which was diluted with saline to 40 mL.
Receives: Drug: Lidocaine; Drug: Fentanyl; Drug: Atropine; Drug: Midazolam; Drug: Diclofenac sodium; Drug: Ephedrine; Drug: Ondansetron

What is being measured

The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.

  1. Onset time of sensory block

    After the injection, the sensorial block was assessed until the initiation of surgery by pinprick test using 22 gauge needle on the radial, ulnar and median nerve stimulation areas of the hand and of the anterior surface of the arm. The time elapsed from the injection of the study drug until the sensorial block was provided in all stimulation areas was recorded as the onset time of sensorial block.

    Measured: The sensorial block was assessed from the injection of the study drug until the initiation of surgery by pinprick test (approximately 175 seconds)

  2. Recovery time of sensory block

    The time of sensorial recovery was recorded (the time elapsed from the deflation of tourniquet to the highest pain felt by the patient via pinprick test in all stimulation areas).

    Measured: The time elapsed from the deflation of tourniquet to the highest pain felt by the patient via pinprick test (approximately 135 seconds)

  3. Onset time of motor block

    Measured: The time elapsed from the injection of the study drug until achieving the complete motor block was recorded as the onset time of motor block (approximately 220 seconds)

  4. Recovery time of motor block

    Measured: Time elapsed from the deflation of tourniquet to the spontaneous movement of the fingers (approximately 165 seconds)

Secondary outcomes (3)
  1. Degree of intraoperative pain

    Pain level of the patients was assessed by 10 cm visual analogue scale (VAS; 0=no pain; 10=very severe pain) for once throughout the study.There is no follow up visit in the study. VAS scores were recorded before (one minute ago) and after tourniquet (five minutes later) application as well as at 5th, 10th, 15th, 20th, 30th, 40th, and 50th min during the surgery for once throughout the study.

    Measured: VAS scores were recorded before (one minute ago) and after tourniquet (five minutes later) application as well as at 5th, 10th, 15th, 20th, 30th, 40th, and 50th min during the surgery

  2. Degree of postoperative pain with VAS measurement

    The patients were monitored in the postoperative care unit for the first 2 h and then in the observation room for 24 h by anesthesiologists who were blinded to the study. VAS measurement was performed at the postoperative 1st, 2nd, 4th, 6th, 12th and 24th h for once throughout the study.There is no follow up visit in the study.

    Measured: VAS measurement was performed at the postoperative 1st, 2nd, 4th, 6th, 12th and 24th hour.

  3. Quality of anesthesia

    Quality of anesthesia is assessed as follows. 4: excellent, patient does not complain; 3: good, patient complains a little, no need for supplemental analgesic; 2: moderate, patient complains, need for supplemental analgesic; 1: failed, need for general anesthesia

    Measured: From the initiation of surgery (30 minutes) up to 24 hours after surgery, an average of 24,5 hours

Timeline

From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.

  1. First posted20 Jan 2016 (estimated)
  2. Study startJan 2013
  3. Primary completionJun 2013
  4. Study completionAug 2013

Resources

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 3
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Randomised
Intervention model
Parallel groups
Masking
Double blind
Who is masked
Participant, Investigator
Enrolment
60 participants (actual)
IDs, dates and publications
ClinicalTrials.gov ID
NCT02658721
Sponsor's protocol ID
IVRA
Status last verified
Jan 2016
First submitted
10 Dec 2015
Last updated
20 Jan 2016
Results posted
No
Data monitoring committee
No

Publications

  • Chan VW, Peng PW, Kaszas Z, Middleton WJ, Muni R, Anastakis DG, Graham BA. A comparative study of general anesthesia, intravenous regional anesthesia, and axillary block for outpatient hand surgery: clinical outcome and cost analysis. Anesth Analg. 2001 Nov;93(5):1181-4. doi: 10.1097/00000539-200111000-00025.

    PubMed 11682392
  • dos Reis A Jr. Intravenous regional anesthesia--first century (1908-2008). Beggining, development, and current status. Rev Bras Anestesiol. 2008 May-Jun;58(3):299-321. doi: 10.1590/s0034-70942008000300013. English, Portuguese.

    PubMed 19378526
  • Choyce A, Peng P. A systematic review of adjuncts for intravenous regional anesthesia for surgical procedures. Can J Anaesth. 2002 Jan;49(1):32-45. doi: 10.1007/BF03020416.

    PubMed 11782326
  • Vazzana M, Andreani T, Fangueiro J, Faggio C, Silva C, Santini A, Garcia ML, Silva AM, Souto EB. Tramadol hydrochloride: pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, adverse side effects, co-administration of drugs and new drug delivery systems. Biomed Pharmacother. 2015 Mar;70:234-8. doi: 10.1016/j.biopha.2015.01.022. Epub 2015 Feb 7.

    PubMed 25776506
  • Pang WW, Mok MS, Chang DP, Huang MH. Local anesthetic effect of tramadol, metoclopramide, and lidocaine following intradermal injection. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 1998 Nov-Dec;23(6):580-3. doi: 10.1016/s1098-7339(98)90085-2.

    PubMed 9840854
  • Pang WW, Huang PY, Chang DP, Huang MH. The peripheral analgesic effect of tramadol in reducing propofol injection pain: a comparison with lidocaine. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 1999 May-Jun;24(3):246-9. doi: 10.1016/s1098-7339(99)90136-0.

    PubMed 10338176
  • Sousa AM, Ashmawi HA, Costa LS, Posso IP, Slullitel A. Percutaneous sciatic nerve block with tramadol induces analgesia and motor blockade in two animal pain models. Braz J Med Biol Res. 2012 Feb;45(2):147-52. doi: 10.1590/s0100-879x2011007500164. Epub 2011 Dec 23.

    PubMed 22183244
  • Kapral S, Gollmann G, Waltl B, Likar R, Sladen RN, Weinstabl C, Lehofer F. Tramadol added to mepivacaine prolongs the duration of an axillary brachial plexus blockade. Anesth Analg. 1999 Apr;88(4):853-6. doi: 10.1097/00000539-199904000-00032.

    PubMed 10195537
  • Nagpal V, Rana S, Singh J, Chaudhary SK. Comparative study of systemically and perineurally administered tramadol as an adjunct for supraclavicular brachial plexus block. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol. 2015 Apr-Jun;31(2):191-5. doi: 10.4103/0970-9185.155147.

    PubMed 25948899
  • Bigat Z, Boztug N, Hadimioglu N, Cete N, Coskunfirat N, Ertok E. Does dexamethasone improve the quality of intravenous regional anesthesia and analgesia? A randomized, controlled clinical study. Anesth Analg. 2006 Feb;102(2):605-9. doi: 10.1213/01.ane.0000194944.54073.dd.

    PubMed 16428570
  • Kashefi P, Montazeri K, Honarmand A, Safavi M, Hosseini HM. The analgesic effect of midazolam when added to lidocaine for intravenous regional anaesthesia. J Res Med Sci. 2011 Sep;16(9):1139-48.

    PubMed 22973382
  • Khanna P, Mohan VK, Sunder RA. Efficacy of diltiazem as an adjunct to lignocaine in intravenous regional anesthesia. Saudi J Anaesth. 2013 Jul;7(3):305-9. doi: 10.4103/1658-354X.115359.

    PubMed 24015135
  • Memis D, Turan A, Karamanlioglu B, Pamukcu Z, Kurt I. Adding dexmedetomidine to lidocaine for intravenous regional anesthesia. Anesth Analg. 2004 Mar;98(3):835-40, table of contents. doi: 10.1213/01.ane.0000100680.77978.66.

    PubMed 14980948
  • Sen H, Kulahci Y, Bicerer E, Ozkan S, Dagli G, Turan A. The analgesic effect of paracetamol when added to lidocaine for intravenous regional anesthesia. Anesth Analg. 2009 Oct;109(4):1327-30. doi: 10.1213/ane.0b013e3181b0fedb.

    PubMed 19762765
  • Sen S, Ugur B, Aydin ON, Ogurlu M, Gezer E, Savk O. The analgesic effect of lornoxicam when added to lidocaine for intravenous regional anaesthesia. Br J Anaesth. 2006 Sep;97(3):408-13. doi: 10.1093/bja/ael170. Epub 2006 Jul 15.

    PubMed 16845131

Questions about this trial

What is this clinical trial studying?

A Phase 3 study testing Lidocaine, lidocaine+adjunct tramadol and lidocaine+systemic tramadol in people with Anesthesia, run by Bagcilar Training and Research Hospital.

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 20 Jan 2016. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.

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.

What does this phase mean?

Phase 3 studies compare the treatment with the current standard treatment or a placebo in a large group, to confirm how well it works and watch for side effects.

Not every study follows the same path, and some studies (observational studies, device studies) have no phase.

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?

Onset time of sensory block (time frame: The sensorial block was assessed from the injection of the study drug until the initiation of surgery by pinprick test (approximately 175 seconds)). The study lists 4 primary outcomes in all. 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 NCT02658721, which also lists 27 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 20 Jan 2016.

Free account

Log in to keep searching

You’ve used your 3 free searches. AzTrials is free: log in or create a free account to keep searching clinical trials and save the ones you want to follow.

Create a free accountLog in