AzTrials
AzTrials

Wounds and InjuriesNCT02830035

Real-Time Ultrasound-guidance Facilitates Paramedian Spinal Anaesthesia

A study testing Real-time Ultrasound-guided and Anatomical Landmark Technique in people with Wounds and Injuries, run by Universiti Sains Malaysia at 1 site in Malaysia.

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

The purpose of this study is to compare the clinical efficacy of real-time ultrasound guidance on spinal anesthesia vs the traditional anatomical landmark technique, by comparing success rate of spinal needle insertion, success rate rate of single needle pass, duration and immediate complications. Read more about this study

Who is it for?
Ages 18 to 75 years
Conditions the study is for
Wounds and Injuries
What is being tested?
Real-time Ultrasound-guided and Anatomical Landmark Technique
Type of treatment
Surgery or procedure
Could I receive a placebo?
No, everyone receives an active treatment
How many people
60 participants
Where
1 siteMalaysia
Study dates
Jun 2014to Jul 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 18 to 75 years
  • All sexes
  • No healthy volunteers
  • Adult, Older adult

Who may be able to join

  • Consented adults aged at least 18 years old.
  • ASA I to III.
  • Presented for lower limb surgery.
  • Fasted for at least 6 hours.

Who cannot join

  • Patient refusal
  • Contraindication to neuraxial block.
  • Patient on anticoagulant medication, or coagulopathy (INR > 1.5)
  • Patient on double antiplatelet, or thrombocytopenia (platelet < 100)
  • Local infection at site of injection
  • Indeterminate neurological disease
Show all 11Show fewer
  • Allergy to local anaesthetics
  • Spinal abnormality
  • Pregnancy.
  • Previous surgery to lumbar region.
  • BMI > 30

Trial locations and contacts

1 site in 1 country.

Malaysia1 site
  • Hospital Universiti Sains Malaysia

    Kota Bharu, Kelantan, 16150

Other trials in Malaysia

About this study

Official title: Comparison Between Real-Time Ultrasound Guidance vs Anatomical Landmark Technique on the Efficacy of Paramedian Spinal Anaesthesia

The purpose of this study is to compare the clinical efficacy of real-time ultrasound guidance on spinal anesthesia vs the traditional anatomical landmark technique, by comparing success rate of spinal needle insertion, success rate rate of single needle pass, duration and immediate complications.

Read the detailed description

Research hypothesis

  1. Ultrasound guidance will lead to a significantly different success rate of paramedian spinal needle insertion, as well as the success rate of single-needle-pass when patient lying in lateral position.
  2. Ultrasound guidance of paramedian spinal anaesthesia has a different rate of complication of spinal anaesthesia, e.g. postdural puncture headache and bloody taps.
  3. Ultrasound guidance of paramedian spinal anaesthesia will cause a significant different in duration of giving spinal anaesthesia, compared to non ultrasound guided technique.

Justification of the Study

Ultrasound guidance in neuraxial blockade has been shown to be superior to palpation in correctly identifying lumbar intervertebral level, as well as improve efficiency and reduce complication of spinal anaesthesia.

Paramedian approach to the subarachnoid spaces is useful in situations where the patient's anatomy does not favor the midline approach, e.g., inability to flex the spine or heavily calcified interspinous ligaments. Studies have shown that choice of midline or paramedian approach did not affect the success rate of the subarachnoid puncture in general. Therefore, this is a technique that worth to be studied.

Orthopedic surgeries involving lower limbs are a common, in which many of the patients might be unable to sit up due to pain.

This study is mainly focused to access the optimal approach of doing paramedian approach of spinal anaesthesia in the condition when patient is lying lateral, in lower limb surgeries, as there is no local data that is available for our population. This will help to improve quality of anaesthesia in terms of patient satisfaction, as well as reduce complication.

Study setting: Operation theater, Hospital Universiti Sains Malaysia. Time frame: 12 months Population : Patients undergoing elective or emergency lower limb surgeries. On-site audit: Human Research Ethics Committee USM (HREC) Standard Operating Procedures will be according to guidelines of Human Research Ethics Committee USM (HREC)

Sample size determination

Sample size calculation was guided by Dr. Yee Cheng Kueh (Lecturer, Unit of Biostatistics and Research Methodology, School of Medical Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia) using Power and Sample size calculation software.

Sample size was based on previous literature by WANG et al comparing Real-time Ultrasound-assisted And Non-ultrasound-assisted Approach in combined spinal-epidural puncture obese patient. Sample size was calculated for primary outcome 1 (success rate of spinle needle insertion) and 2 (success rate of single needle pass), and secondary outcome 1 (duration for successful dural puncture and duration for procedure). The largest sample size was taken.

Methodology:

  1. After approval from Human Research Ethics Committee USM (HREC), patient will be selected according to inclusion \& exclusion criteria during preoperative assessment, from emergency or elective OT list.
  2. Explain procedure to patient and get the written consent from patient.
  3. Consented patients will be randomized into 2 arm: group U (ultrasound guided) and group P (anatomical landmark technique by palpation) using block randomization method and allocation concealment as:
  • 6 ballot cards will be put inside the envelope. Each of the cards state 6 different sequences of grouping (UUPP, PPUU, UPUP, PUPU, UPPU, and PUUP).
  • 1 card will be randomly taken each time by the nurse who assists anaesthesia to decide the group for the first four patients. This will be followed by other cards until all 6 sequences are completed. This means that at the end of 6 randomized sequences, there will be an equal 12 patients in each groups with the total number of 24 samples.
  • The randomization will be continued again as above until the total samples of collection are completed. (15x4 =60)
  1. The monitoring of all patients will be standardized :
  • Noninvasive blood pressure (NIBP)
  • Heart Rate (HR)
  • Oxygen saturation , SPO2
  • Electrocardiogram (ECG)
  1. Hemodynamic parameters such as systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), mean arterial pressure (MAP), heart rate (HR) will be recorded before procedure, and post spinal 1min, 3 min, 5 min \& 10 min.
  2. Patient will then be positioned laterally with the operation limb on the dependent site.
  3. In the ultrasound group, a pre-procedural scan of the lumbar spine will be performed using portable ultrasound machine, Mindray M5 (Mindray, Shenzhen, China) with 2.5-3.0 MHz transducer. After aseptic skin preparation and draping, the convex 2.5-3.0MHz transducer will be covered with a sterile sheath. Sterile ultrasound gel will be used for transducer-skin contact. When the preferred lumbar interspace is in view on monitor, local anaesthetic (lignocaine 2% 2-3ml) will be infiltrated to the skin and underlying tissue 1-2 cm lateral to the identified spinous process. Under real-time ultrasound guidance, a spinal needle introducer is then inserted in-plane to the ultrasound probe, followed by A 25G Pencan® pencil point spinal needle. The backflow of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) will confirmed a successful dural puncture.
  4. In the palpation group, the puncture site will be identified by palpation. The site where Tuffier's line (imaginary line between the iliac crests) crossed the spine is identified as level of L4 and the L3-4 or L4-L5 intervertebral space is chosen as the puncture site.

Once dural puncture is obtained, 2.5ml of isobaric bupivacaine and 25mcg of preservative-free fentanyl was injected.

Data will be analyzed using SPSS software.

For primary outcome 1 (success rate of spinle needle insertion), data obtained in the study will be analyzed with uncorrected chi-square test for comparison between Group Ultrasound and Group Palpation. Fisher's exact test was used in cases where assumption of Chi square was not met.

For primary outcome 2 (success rate of single needle pass), data obtained in the study will be analyzed with uncorrected chi-square test for comparison between Group Ultrasound and Group Palpation. Fisher's exact test was used in cases where assumption of Chi square was not met.

For secondary outcome 1 (duration for successful dural puncture and duration for procedure), data obtained will be analyzed with independent t-test for comparison of duration between Group Ultrasound and Group Palpation.

For secondary outcome 2 (immediate complication), data obtained will be analyzed descriptively as sample size will be too big to significantly compare the complication rates and was not cost effective.

Being tested
Real-time Ultrasound-guided, Anatomical Landmark Technique
Keywords
ultrasound guided, spinal anesthesia, neuraxial block, paramedian
Medical subject headings
Wounds and Injuries

What participants receive

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

  • Real-time Ultrasound-guidedProcedure or surgery

    Real-time ultrasound guided paramedian spinal anesthesia

  • Anatomical Landmark TechniqueProcedure or surgery

    Conventional anatomical landmark technique for paramedian spinal anesthesia

Study groups in NCT02830035
Study groupRoleWhat they receive
Anatomical Landmark TechniqueActive comparatorTraditional anatomical landmark technique based paramedian spinal anesthesia
Receives: Procedure: Anatomical Landmark Technique
Real-time Ultrasound-guided TechniqueActive comparatorUltrasound-guided paramedian spinal anesthesia Intervention: Ultrasound-guided Technique
Receives: Procedure: Real-time Ultrasound-guided

What is being measured

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

  1. success rate of spinal needle insertion

    The ability of getting a successful spinal anesthesia with a single skin puncture regardless of needle redirection.

    Measured: during the procedure of spinal anesthesia

  2. success rate of single needle pass

    The ability of getting a successful spinal anesthesia with a single skin puncture and no needle redirection.

    Measured: during the procedure of spinal anesthesia

Secondary outcomes (2)
  1. duration of procedure

    Measured: during the procedure of spinal anesthesia

  2. immediate complication

    Measured: immediately after and within 1 week after given spinal anesthesia

Timeline

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

  1. First posted12 Jul 2016 (estimated)
  2. Study startJun 2014
  3. Primary completionMay 2015
  4. Study completionJul 2015

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 N/A
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Randomised
Intervention model
Parallel groups
Masking
None (open label)
Enrolment
60 participants (actual)
IDs, dates and publications
ClinicalTrials.gov ID
NCT02830035
Sponsor's protocol ID
USM/JEPeM/283.2.(5)
Status last verified
Aug 2016
First submitted
7 Jul 2016
Last updated
8 Aug 2016
Results posted
No
Data monitoring committee
No
Individual data sharing
Undecided

Publications

  • Niazi AU, Chin KJ, Jin R, Chan VW. Real-time ultrasound-guided spinal anesthesia using the SonixGPS ultrasound guidance system: a feasibility study. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2014 Aug;58(7):875-81. doi: 10.1111/aas.12353. Epub 2014 Jun 18.

    PubMed 24943307
  • Ansari T, Yousef A, El Gamassy A, Fayez M. Ultrasound-guided spinal anaesthesia in obstetrics: is there an advantage over the landmark technique in patients with easily palpable spines? Int J Obstet Anesth. 2014 Aug;23(3):213-6. doi: 10.1016/j.ijoa.2014.03.001. Epub 2014 Mar 12.

    PubMed 24768303
  • Grau T, Leipold RW, Fatehi S, Martin E, Motsch J. Real-time ultrasonic observation of combined spinal-epidural anaesthesia. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2004 Jan;21(1):25-31. doi: 10.1017/s026502150400105x.

    PubMed 14768920
  • Horlocker TT, Wedel DJ, Benzon H, Brown DL, Enneking FK, Heit JA, Mulroy MF, Rosenquist RW, Rowlingson J, Tryba M, Yuan CS. Regional anesthesia in the anticoagulated patient: defining the risks (the second ASRA Consensus Conference on Neuraxial Anesthesia and Anticoagulation). Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2003 May-Jun;28(3):172-97. doi: 10.1053/rapm.2003.50046. No abstract available.

    PubMed 12772135
  • Wang Q, Yin C, Wang TL. Ultrasound facilitates identification of combined spinal-epidural puncture in obese parturients. Chin Med J (Engl). 2012 Nov;125(21):3840-3.

    PubMed 23106885
  • Conroy PH, Luyet C, McCartney CJ, McHardy PG. Real-time ultrasound-guided spinal anaesthesia: a prospective observational study of a new approach. Anesthesiol Res Pract. 2013;2013:525818. doi: 10.1155/2013/525818. Epub 2013 Jan 10.

    PubMed 23365568
  • Brinkmann S, Tang R, Sawka A, Vaghadia H. Single-operator real-time ultrasound-guided spinal injection using SonixGPS: a case series. Can J Anaesth. 2013 Sep;60(9):896-901. doi: 10.1007/s12630-013-9984-9. Epub 2013 Jun 19.

    PubMed 23780883
  • Chin KJ, Perlas A, Chan V, Brown-Shreves D, Koshkin A, Vaishnav V. Ultrasound imaging facilitates spinal anesthesia in adults with difficult surface anatomic landmarks. Anesthesiology. 2011 Jul;115(1):94-101. doi: 10.1097/ALN.0b013e31821a8ad4.

    PubMed 21572316

Questions about this trial

What is this clinical trial studying?

A study testing Real-time Ultrasound-guided and Anatomical Landmark Technique in people with Wounds and Injuries, run by Universiti Sains Malaysia at 1 site in Malaysia.

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 4 inclusion and 11 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 8 Aug 2016. 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 Malaysia. 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?

success rate of spinal needle insertion (time frame: during the procedure of spinal anesthesia). The study lists 2 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 NCT02830035, which also lists 8 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 8 Aug 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