Pain, PostoperativePhase 3NCT03027661
Para-cervical Block Prior to Laparoscopic Hysterectomy as an Adjuvant Treatment to Reduce Postoperative Pain.
A Phase 3 study testing Bupivacaine and 0.9% Sodium Chloride in people with Pain, Postoperative, run by University of Tennessee at 1 site in United States.
Trial summary
This is a prospective randomized controlled trial in which patients that are scheduled to undergo a laparoscopic hysterectomy would be allocated to one of two groups: Paracervical block with local anesthetic (bupivacaine 0.5%), or placebo. This would be achieved using block randomization. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 to 60 years, women onlyHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Pain, Postoperative
- What is being tested?
- Bupivacaine and 0.9% Sodium Chloride
- Type of treatment
- Injection or infusion
- Could I receive a placebo?
- Yes, some participants may receive a placebo
- How many people
- 41 participants
- Where
- 1 siteUnited States
- Study dates
- 1 Aug 2017to 30 Jun 2018
- Phase
- Phase 3
- Are there results?
- Yes, posted in the registrySummary in the doctors' view
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 60 years
- Women only
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult
Who may be able to join
- Undergoing laparoscopic hysterectomy with or without salpingoophorectomy for benign indications
- Undergoing laparoscopic hysterectomy with robotic assistance with or without salpingoophorectomy for benign indications
- Between 18 and 60 years of age
Who cannot join
- Intraoperative detection of malignancy
- Undergoing additional procedures at the time of surgery (except prophylactic McCall culdoplasty/uterosacral ligament suspension, excision of endometriosis, appendectomy, cystoscopy)
- Inability to perform paracervical block due to anatomic abnormalities (absent/flush cervix)
- Known allergy/sensitivity to bupivacaine
- Intraoperative bowel injury, bladder injury, ureter injury or major vessel injury that required repair.
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
United States1 site
Erlanger Medical Center
Chattanooga, Tennessee, 37403
About this study
This is a prospective randomized controlled trial in which patients that are scheduled to undergo a laparoscopic hysterectomy would be allocated to one of two groups: Paracervical block with local anesthetic (bupivacaine 0.5%), or placebo. This would be achieved using block randomization. The intervention would be performed after the patient is under general anesthesia, prior to starting the surgery. Patients would be consented in the office or preoperative area (before receiving sedatives). As far as the intervention itself, it would consist of injecting 5 mL of 0.5% bupivacaine into the cervical stroma at 3 and 9 o'clock, which is standard technique for para-cervical block. The remainder of the procedure will then continue in a regular fashion. Alternatively, patients in the control group will be injected with 5 mL of normal saline. The surgeon would be blinded as to patient allocation. Research staff will have previously prepared the formulations (saline or bupivacaine) and have sent them to the operating room prior to beginning the procedure depending on assigned group. At the end of the case, pain will be assessed using a visual analogue scale with a range from 0 to 10 by one of the researches who will also be blinded to the group. This will be done at 30 and 60 minutes after surgical stop time. Additional pain control in the postanesthesia care unit (PACU) will be standardized to all patients.
Hypothesis:
Performing a para-cervical block with local anesthetic prior to a laparoscopic hysterectomy significantly reduces pain after the procedure
Read the detailed description
Specific aims:
-Determine if infiltrating the cervical stroma with local anesthetic prior to performing a hysterectomy will reduce postoperative pain scores, and hence increase patient satisfaction.
Secondary aims:
- Determine if there is a difference in baseline pain depending on additional procedures performed, and their response to the paracervical block.
- Determine if there is a difference in response to paracervical block based on history of cesarean deliveries or uterine weight.
Background/Significance:
Hysterectomy is one of the most common surgical procedures performed in the United States, with more than 600,000 done annually. Over the last decade, there has been major changes in regards to the surgical approach utilized. With the advent of laparoscopy and robotic surgery, the rate of procedures done vaginally or abdominally has decreased significantly. One of the major drivers to this change is the demand for a faster recovery and decreased postoperative discomfort. Additionally, several adjuvant methods such as a TAP (transverse abdominal plain) block, ERAS (expedited recovery after surgery) pathway, etc. have been developed in order to minimize pain after surgery and hence increase patient satisfaction. Paracervical block is a particular technique that has been evaluated in multiple studies as a way to reduce pain after vaginal surgery. Studies have been successful in demonstrating an improvement in pain scores after these types of procedures. However, to our knowledge, there has never been follow-up to evaluate this method during the laparoscopic approach, with or without robotic assistance. The rationale of why this technique may be beneficial during a hysterectomy is that after infiltrating the cervical stroma with local anesthetic, it will diffuse towards the pelvic sidewalls via the lymphatic and capillary systems, which would allow for the anesthetic agent to come in direct contact with the nerve plexuses that innervate the pelvic structures. Safety of the technique has been proven over the years, given that it is widely used during office procedures that involve manipulation of the cervix. Although much of the focus regarding reducing postoperative pain has been centered on the abdominal wall and port sites, it is undeniable that a significant portion of pain actually arises from the pelvic surgical site; particularly since laparoscopic trocars have become smaller, resulting in less trauma. Our aim is to determine if infiltrating the cervical stroma with local anesthetic prior to performing a hysterectomy will reduce postoperative pain scores, and hence increase patient satisfaction.
Methods
Study design
This is a prospective randomized controlled trial in which patients that are scheduled to undergo a laparoscopic hysterectomy would be allocated to one of two groups: Paracervical block with local anesthetic (bupivacaine 0.5%), or placebo. This would be achieved using block randomization. The intervention would be performed after the patient is under general anesthesia, prior to starting the surgery. Patients would be consented in the office or preoperative area (before receiving sedatives). As far as the intervention itself, it would consist of injecting 10 mL of 0.5% bupivacaine into the cervical stroma at 3 and 9 o'clock, which is standard technique for para-cervical block. The remainder of the procedure will then continue in a regular fashion. Alternatively, patients in the control group will be injected with 10 mL of normal saline. The surgeon would be blinded as to patient allocation. The formulations (saline or bupivacaine) will be previously prepared in a syringe in the operating room by a member of the research time prior to beginning the procedure. At the end of the case, pain will be assessed using a visual analogue scale with a range from 0 to 10 (Wong-Baker faces - appendix 1) by one of the researches who will also be blinded to the group. This will be done at 30 and 60 minutes after surgical stop time. Additional pain control in the PACU will be standardized to all patients.
Study Subjects
Subjects will be selected based mainly on the fact they are undergoing a hysterectomy.
Sample Size
Investigators expect to detect a 25% reduction in pain reported on the visual analogue scale (VAS). Based on previous publications, it was determined that the mean VAS pain score after a laparoscopic hysterectomy is 5 with a standard deviation of 1.5. In order to detect the expected change after the proposed intervention, with a significance level of 5% and a power of 80%, a sample of 46 patients is required.
Data Collection
Data points to be collected are as follows:
- Age
- BMI
- Operating time
- History of cesarean deliveries
- Preoperative indication for surgery (pain, prolapse, tumor, bleeding, etc)
- Procedures performed (if ovaries/tubes were removed, if robotic assistance was used, if any additional procedures that are exceptions from the exclusion criteria were performed).
- Specimen weight
- Uterine pathology
- Pain score at 30 minutes (see appendix 1 for Wong-Baker scale)
- Pain score at 60 minutes
- Number of days in the hospital (zero if discharged on same-day)
Data Handling
A master key will be generated during randomization. It will contain patient initials and medical record number, and an individual code. Only the primary investigator will have access to this master key. A separate de-identified database using the individual code as index will be used for collection of all data points. The data that can be collected on the day of surgery (baseline characteristics, operating time, pain scores, etc) will be collected that day using a standardized form (appendix 2). This will later be transferred to the de-identified database. Using the master key, investigators will research pathology reports when available to complete final data points (uterine weight, histology, etc).
The data-collection sheets will be destroyed as soon as they are transferred into the de-identified database.
Data Analysis
Investigators will use T-Student tests to assure groups are homogenous to age, BMI, operating time, history of cesarean deliveries, and uterine weight. ChiSquare and Ancova analysis will be utilized to determine if there is a significant difference in reported pain scores between groups. Investigators will also stratify subjects based on uterine weight, history of cesarean delivery, additional procedures, etc. and determine if this has an effect on the reported pain scores.
Time Frame
Investigators expect to be able to consent and enroll at least two patients per week (average range of hysterectomy procedures per week from the surgeons that will participate is 5-10). Investigators expect the data collection phase to span over 30 weeks approximately.
Strength/Innovation
Patient satisfaction is a center point in today's healthcare. Faster recovery with less discomfort is not only standard of care, but may also translate into major economic advantages, such as less narcotic use and a decreased rate of postoperative admission. Using this technique as an adjuvant treatment for pain after laparoscopic hysterectomies has never been explored. There is data published for similar procedures, which demonstrates a clear benefit. If this study demonstrates significant improvement in pain scores, it has the potential to change standard of care for pain control during hysterectomy procedures.
Limitations
The main confounding factors are difference in operating style between surgeons and baseline surgical characteristics (large uteri that may require more dissection and tissue manipulation, etc.). To control for this investigators are only recruiting patients from 3 surgeons who have a similar operating technique. In addition to this, investigators are documenting operating time and specimen weight, which can be used to compare both groups and assure that they are homogeneous to these potential confounders. Further analysis will also be made specifically stratifying the data based on these characteristics.
Risks
The risks of the procedure are minimal. Regarding possible adverse reactions to the local anesthetic, there is no additional risk given that this is already routinely administered during surgery. Patients will be screened to confirm they do not have a history of allergies to the medication. Possible reactions include hypotension, bradycardia, headaches, tremors, etc. The paracervical block is routinely performed in the office setting before most invasive procedures involving the cervix, and risks are minimal, similar to those involving any subdermal injection. Possible risks include bleeding from injection site.
There is also the potential risk of accidental disclosure of the health information that will be collected.
Benefits
This study may find new methods of improving postoperative analgesia for patients undergoing minimally invasive hysterectomy procedures which may lead to less narcotic use, faster discharge from hospital, and greater satisfaction.
Costs
There is no additional costs. Local anesthetic and saline are products that are routinely used during all laparoscopic hysterectomy surgeries. The additional operating time it would take to perform the block is also negligible, since it is a procedure that can be accomplished in less than 2 minutes.
- Conditions
- Pain, Postoperative
- Being tested
- Bupivacaine, 0.9% Sodium Chloride
- Keywords
- para-cervical block, laparoscopic hysterectomy
- Medical subject headings
- Pain, Postoperative
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
BupivacaineDrug
Also called Marcaine, Sensorcaine
Inject 10 mL of 0.5% bupivacaine into cervical stroma
0.9% Sodium ChlorideDrug
Also called Normal Saline
Inject 10 mL of 0.9% NaCl into cervical stroma
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Control Group | Placebo comparator | Injection of 10 mL of 0.9% sodium chloride into the cervical stroma divided between 3 and 9 o'clock Receives: Drug: 0.9% Sodium Chloride |
| Study Group | Active comparator | Injection of 10 mL of 0.5% bupivacaine into the cervical stroma divided between 3 and 9 o'clock. Receives: Drug: Bupivacaine |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Pain Reported on the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) at 30 Minutes Postoperative
Scale used is the Visual analogue scale for pain. Scale ranges from 0 being no pain, to 10 being worse pain ever experienced.
Measured: 30 minutes post-operative stop time
Pain Reported on the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) at 60 Minutes Postoperative
Postoperative pain score on the Visual analgoue scale at 60 minutes from surgical stop time. Scale ranges from 0 being no pain, to 10 being worse pain ever experienced.
Measured: 60 minutes
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted23 Jan 2017 (estimated)
- Study start1 Aug 2017
- Primary completion30 Jun 2018
- Study completion30 Jun 2018
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Posted resultsParticipant flow, outcome measures and adverse events reported by the sponsor.
- Publications (14)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Pain, PostoperativeStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- 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 3
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Quadruple blind
- Who is masked
- Participant, Care provider, Investigator, Outcomes assessor
- Enrolment
- 41 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- University of Tennessee
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
- Investigators
- Steven J Radtke, MD, Principal investigator, UT College of Medicine MIGS Fellow & Faculty
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT03027661
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 16-130
- Status last verified
- Jan 2017
- First submitted
- 17 Jan 2017
- Last updated
- 15 Nov 2018
- Results posted
- Yes, on ClinicalTrials.gov
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- Yes
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No
Publications
Acton JN, Salfinger SG, Tan J, Cohen PA. Outcomes of Total Laparoscopic Hysterectomy Using a 5-mm Versus 10-mm Laparoscope: A Randomized Control Trial. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2016 Jan;23(1):101-6. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2015.09.001. Epub 2015 Sep 11.
PubMed 26371370Centini G, Calonaci A, Lazzeri L, Tosti C, Palomba C, Puzzutiello R, Luisi S, Petraglia F, Zupi E. Parenterally administered moderate sedation and paracervical block versus general anesthesia for hysteroscopic polypectomy: a pilot study comparing postoperative outcomes. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2015 Feb;22(2):193-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2014.09.008. Epub 2014 Nov 13.
PubMed 25265887Donnez O, Donnez J, Dolmans MM, Dethy A, Baeyens M, Mitchell J. Low Pain Score After Total Laparoscopic Hysterectomy and Same-Day Discharge Within Less Than 5 Hours: Results of a Prospective Observational Study. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2015 Nov-Dec;22(7):1293-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2015.06.021. Epub 2015 Jul 11.
PubMed 26169246Golembiewski J, Dasta J. Evolving Role of Local Anesthetics in Managing Postsurgical Analgesia. Clin Ther. 2015 Jun 1;37(6):1354-71. doi: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2015.03.017. Epub 2015 Apr 10.
PubMed 25866297Long JB, Eiland RJ, Hentz JG, Mergens PA, Magtibay PM, Kho RM, Magrina JF, Cornella JL. Randomized trial of preemptive local analgesia in vaginal surgery. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2009 Jan;20(1):5-10. doi: 10.1007/s00192-008-0716-6. Epub 2008 Oct 2.
PubMed 18830553Ng A, Swami A, Smith G, Davidson AC, Emembolu J. The analgesic effects of intraperitoneal and incisional bupivacaine with epinephrine after total abdominal hysterectomy. Anesth Analg. 2002 Jul;95(1):158-62, table of contents. doi: 10.1097/00000539-200207000-00028.
PubMed 12088961O'Neal MG, Beste T, Shackelford DP. Utility of preemptive local analgesia in vaginal hysterectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003 Dec;189(6):1539-41; discussion 1541-2. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2003.10.691.
PubMed 14710057Penninx JP, Mol BW, Bongers MY. Endometrial ablation with paracervical block. J Reprod Med. 2009 Oct;54(10):617-20.
PubMed 20677480Skensved H. Combining Paracervical Block With a Complete Fundal Block Significantly Reduces Patients' Perception of Pain During Radio-Frequency Endometrial Ablation in an Office Setting. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2015 Nov-Dec;22(6S):S45. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2015.08.124. Epub 2015 Oct 15. No abstract available.
PubMed 27679246Tangsiriwatthana T, Sangkomkamhang US, Lumbiganon P, Laopaiboon M. Paracervical local anaesthesia for cervical dilatation and uterine intervention. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Sep 30;2013(9):CD005056. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD005056.pub3.
PubMed 24085642ACOG Committee Opinion No. 444: choosing the route of hysterectomy for benign disease. Obstet Gynecol. 2009 Nov;114(5):1156-1158. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181c33c72.
PubMed 20168127Wong-Baker FACES Foundation (2016). Wong-Baker FACES® Pain Rating Scale. Retrieved 11/10/2016 with permission from http://www.WongBakerFACES.org
Mercier RJ, Zerden ML. Intrauterine anesthesia for gynecologic procedures: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol. 2012 Sep;120(3):669-77. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3182639ab5.
PubMed 22914480Radtke S, Boren T, Depasquale S. Paracervical Block as a Strategy to Reduce Postoperative Pain after Laparoscopic Hysterectomy: A Randomized Controlled Trial. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2019 Sep-Oct;26(6):1164-1168. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2018.12.001. Epub 2018 Dec 6.
PubMed 30528725
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 15 Nov 2018. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Para-cervical Block Prior to Laparoscopic Hysterectomy as an Adjuvant Treatment to Reduce Postoperative Pain.
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT03027661
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- 16-130
- Conditions
- Pain, Postoperative
- Keywords
- para-cervical block, laparoscopic hysterectomy
- Phase
- Phase 3
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 41 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- University of TennesseeUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 1 Aug 2017 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 30 Jun 2018 (actual)
- Study completion
- 30 Jun 2018 (actual)
- First posted
- 23 Jan 2017 (estimated)
- Results
- Posted 15 Nov 2018
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
This is a prospective randomized controlled trial in which patients that are scheduled to undergo a laparoscopic hysterectomy would be allocated to one of two groups: Paracervical block with local anesthetic (bupivacaine 0.5%), or placebo. This would be achieved using block randomization. The intervention would be performed after the patient is under general anesthesia, prior to starting the surgery. Patients would be consented in the office or preoperative area (before receiving sedatives). As far as the intervention itself, it would consist of injecting 5 mL of 0.5% bupivacaine into the cervical stroma at 3 and 9 o'clock, which is standard technique for para-cervical block. The remainder of the procedure will then continue in a regular fashion. Alternatively, patients in the control group will be injected with 5 mL of normal saline. The surgeon would be blinded as to patient allocation. Research staff will have previously prepared the formulations (saline or bupivacaine) and have sent them to the operating room prior to beginning the procedure depending on assigned group. At the end of the case, pain will be assessed using a visual analogue scale with a range from 0 to 10 by one of the researches who will also be blinded to the group. This will be done at 30 and 60 minutes after surgical stop time. Additional pain control in the postanesthesia care unit (PACU) will be standardized to all patients.
Hypothesis:
Performing a para-cervical block with local anesthetic prior to a laparoscopic hysterectomy significantly reduces pain after the procedure
Detailed description
Specific aims:
-Determine if infiltrating the cervical stroma with local anesthetic prior to performing a hysterectomy will reduce postoperative pain scores, and hence increase patient satisfaction.
Secondary aims:
- Determine if there is a difference in baseline pain depending on additional procedures performed, and their response to the paracervical block.
- Determine if there is a difference in response to paracervical block based on history of cesarean deliveries or uterine weight.
Background/Significance:
Hysterectomy is one of the most common surgical procedures performed in the United States, with more than 600,000 done annually. Over the last decade, there has been major changes in regards to the surgical approach utilized. With the advent of laparoscopy and robotic surgery, the rate of procedures done vaginally or abdominally has decreased significantly. One of the major drivers to this change is the demand for a faster recovery and decreased postoperative discomfort. Additionally, several adjuvant methods such as a TAP (transverse abdominal plain) block, ERAS (expedited recovery after surgery) pathway, etc. have been developed in order to minimize pain after surgery and hence increase patient satisfaction. Paracervical block is a particular technique that has been evaluated in multiple studies as a way to reduce pain after vaginal surgery. Studies have been successful in demonstrating an improvement in pain scores after these types of procedures. However, to our knowledge, there has never been follow-up to evaluate this method during the laparoscopic approach, with or without robotic assistance. The rationale of why this technique may be beneficial during a hysterectomy is that after infiltrating the cervical stroma with local anesthetic, it will diffuse towards the pelvic sidewalls via the lymphatic and capillary systems, which would allow for the anesthetic agent to come in direct contact with the nerve plexuses that innervate the pelvic structures. Safety of the technique has been proven over the years, given that it is widely used during office procedures that involve manipulation of the cervix. Although much of the focus regarding reducing postoperative pain has been centered on the abdominal wall and port sites, it is undeniable that a significant portion of pain actually arises from the pelvic surgical site; particularly since laparoscopic trocars have become smaller, resulting in less trauma. Our aim is to determine if infiltrating the cervical stroma with local anesthetic prior to performing a hysterectomy will reduce postoperative pain scores, and hence increase patient satisfaction.
Methods
Study design
This is a prospective randomized controlled trial in which patients that are scheduled to undergo a laparoscopic hysterectomy would be allocated to one of two groups: Paracervical block with local anesthetic (bupivacaine 0.5%), or placebo. This would be achieved using block randomization. The intervention would be performed after the patient is under general anesthesia, prior to starting the surgery. Patients would be consented in the office or preoperative area (before receiving sedatives). As far as the intervention itself, it would consist of injecting 10 mL of 0.5% bupivacaine into the cervical stroma at 3 and 9 o'clock, which is standard technique for para-cervical block. The remainder of the procedure will then continue in a regular fashion. Alternatively, patients in the control group will be injected with 10 mL of normal saline. The surgeon would be blinded as to patient allocation. The formulations (saline or bupivacaine) will be previously prepared in a syringe in the operating room by a member of the research time prior to beginning the procedure. At the end of the case, pain will be assessed using a visual analogue scale with a range from 0 to 10 (Wong-Baker faces - appendix 1) by one of the researches who will also be blinded to the group. This will be done at 30 and 60 minutes after surgical stop time. Additional pain control in the PACU will be standardized to all patients.
Study Subjects
Subjects will be selected based mainly on the fact they are undergoing a hysterectomy.
Sample Size
Investigators expect to detect a 25% reduction in pain reported on the visual analogue scale (VAS). Based on previous publications, it was determined that the mean VAS pain score after a laparoscopic hysterectomy is 5 with a standard deviation of 1.5. In order to detect the expected change after the proposed intervention, with a significance level of 5% and a power of 80%, a sample of 46 patients is required.
Data Collection
Data points to be collected are as follows:
- Age
- BMI
- Operating time
- History of cesarean deliveries
- Preoperative indication for surgery (pain, prolapse, tumor, bleeding, etc)
- Procedures performed (if ovaries/tubes were removed, if robotic assistance was used, if any additional procedures that are exceptions from the exclusion criteria were performed).
- Specimen weight
- Uterine pathology
- Pain score at 30 minutes (see appendix 1 for Wong-Baker scale)
- Pain score at 60 minutes
- Number of days in the hospital (zero if discharged on same-day)
Data Handling
A master key will be generated during randomization. It will contain patient initials and medical record number, and an individual code. Only the primary investigator will have access to this master key. A separate de-identified database using the individual code as index will be used for collection of all data points. The data that can be collected on the day of surgery (baseline characteristics, operating time, pain scores, etc) will be collected that day using a standardized form (appendix 2). This will later be transferred to the de-identified database. Using the master key, investigators will research pathology reports when available to complete final data points (uterine weight, histology, etc).
The data-collection sheets will be destroyed as soon as they are transferred into the de-identified database.
Data Analysis
Investigators will use T-Student tests to assure groups are homogenous to age, BMI, operating time, history of cesarean deliveries, and uterine weight. ChiSquare and Ancova analysis will be utilized to determine if there is a significant difference in reported pain scores between groups. Investigators will also stratify subjects based on uterine weight, history of cesarean delivery, additional procedures, etc. and determine if this has an effect on the reported pain scores.
Time Frame
Investigators expect to be able to consent and enroll at least two patients per week (average range of hysterectomy procedures per week from the surgeons that will participate is 5-10). Investigators expect the data collection phase to span over 30 weeks approximately.
Strength/Innovation
Patient satisfaction is a center point in today's healthcare. Faster recovery with less discomfort is not only standard of care, but may also translate into major economic advantages, such as less narcotic use and a decreased rate of postoperative admission. Using this technique as an adjuvant treatment for pain after laparoscopic hysterectomies has never been explored. There is data published for similar procedures, which demonstrates a clear benefit. If this study demonstrates significant improvement in pain scores, it has the potential to change standard of care for pain control during hysterectomy procedures.
Limitations
The main confounding factors are difference in operating style between surgeons and baseline surgical characteristics (large uteri that may require more dissection and tissue manipulation, etc.). To control for this investigators are only recruiting patients from 3 surgeons who have a similar operating technique. In addition to this, investigators are documenting operating time and specimen weight, which can be used to compare both groups and assure that they are homogeneous to these potential confounders. Further analysis will also be made specifically stratifying the data based on these characteristics.
Risks
The risks of the procedure are minimal. Regarding possible adverse reactions to the local anesthetic, there is no additional risk given that this is already routinely administered during surgery. Patients will be screened to confirm they do not have a history of allergies to the medication. Possible reactions include hypotension, bradycardia, headaches, tremors, etc. The paracervical block is routinely performed in the office setting before most invasive procedures involving the cervix, and risks are minimal, similar to those involving any subdermal injection. Possible risks include bleeding from injection site.
There is also the potential risk of accidental disclosure of the health information that will be collected.
Benefits
This study may find new methods of improving postoperative analgesia for patients undergoing minimally invasive hysterectomy procedures which may lead to less narcotic use, faster discharge from hospital, and greater satisfaction.
Costs
There is no additional costs. Local anesthetic and saline are products that are routinely used during all laparoscopic hysterectomy surgeries. The additional operating time it would take to perform the block is also negligible, since it is a procedure that can be accomplished in less than 2 minutes.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Quadruple blind (participant, care provider, investigator, outcomes assessor)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Control Group | Placebo comparator | Drug: 0.9% Sodium ChlorideInjection of 10 mL of 0.9% sodium chloride into the cervical stroma divided between 3 and 9 o'clock |
| Study Group | Active comparator | Drug: BupivacaineInjection of 10 mL of 0.5% bupivacaine into the cervical stroma divided between 3 and 9 o'clock. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 to 60 years
- Sex
- Female only
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult
Key inclusion criteria (3 listed)
- Undergoing laparoscopic hysterectomy with or without salpingoophorectomy for benign indications
- Undergoing laparoscopic hysterectomy with robotic assistance with or without salpingoophorectomy for benign indications
- Between 18 and 60 years of age
Key exclusion criteria (5 listed)
- Intraoperative detection of malignancy
- Undergoing additional procedures at the time of surgery (except prophylactic McCall culdoplasty/uterosacral ligament suspension, excision of endometriosis, appendectomy, cystoscopy)
- Inability to perform paracervical block due to anatomic abnormalities (absent/flush cervix)
- Known allergy/sensitivity to bupivacaine
- Intraoperative bowel injury, bladder injury, ureter injury or major vessel injury that required repair.
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 |
|---|---|---|
| BupivacaineAlso: Marcaine, SensorcaineInject 10 mL of 0.5% bupivacaine into cervical stroma | Drug | Study Group |
| 0.9% Sodium ChlorideAlso: Normal SalineInject 10 mL of 0.9% NaCl into cervical stroma | Drug | Control Group |
Primary outcome
Pain Reported on the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) at 30 Minutes Postoperative
Time frame: 30 minutes post-operative stop time
Scale used is the Visual analogue scale for pain. Scale ranges from 0 being no pain, to 10 being worse pain ever experienced.
Pain Reported on the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) at 60 Minutes Postoperative
Time frame: 60 minutes
Postoperative pain score on the Visual analgoue scale at 60 minutes from surgical stop time. Scale ranges from 0 being no pain, to 10 being worse pain ever experienced.
Results and safety
Loading the posted results from ClinicalTrials.gov…
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 15 Nov 2018.
- Posted resultsParticipant flow, baseline, all outcome measures and adverse events.
- Background: PubMed 26371370Acton JN, Salfinger SG, Tan J, Cohen PA. Outcomes of Total Laparoscopic Hysterectomy Using a 5-mm Versus 10-mm Laparoscope: A Randomized Control Trial. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2016 Jan;23(1):101-6. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2015.09.001. Epub 2015 Sep 11.
- Background: PubMed 25265887Centini G, Calonaci A, Lazzeri L, Tosti C, Palomba C, Puzzutiello R, Luisi S, Petraglia F, Zupi E. Parenterally administered moderate sedation and paracervical block versus general anesthesia for hysteroscopic polypectomy: a pilot study comparing postoperative outcomes. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2015 Feb;22(2):193-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2014.09.008. Epub 2014 Nov 13.
- Background: PubMed 26169246Donnez O, Donnez J, Dolmans MM, Dethy A, Baeyens M, Mitchell J. Low Pain Score After Total Laparoscopic Hysterectomy and Same-Day Discharge Within Less Than 5 Hours: Results of a Prospective Observational Study. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2015 Nov-Dec;22(7):1293-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2015.06.021. Epub 2015 Jul 11.
- Background: PubMed 25866297Golembiewski J, Dasta J. Evolving Role of Local Anesthetics in Managing Postsurgical Analgesia. Clin Ther. 2015 Jun 1;37(6):1354-71. doi: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2015.03.017. Epub 2015 Apr 10.
- Background: PubMed 18830553Long JB, Eiland RJ, Hentz JG, Mergens PA, Magtibay PM, Kho RM, Magrina JF, Cornella JL. Randomized trial of preemptive local analgesia in vaginal surgery. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2009 Jan;20(1):5-10. doi: 10.1007/s00192-008-0716-6. Epub 2008 Oct 2.
- Background: PubMed 12088961Ng A, Swami A, Smith G, Davidson AC, Emembolu J. The analgesic effects of intraperitoneal and incisional bupivacaine with epinephrine after total abdominal hysterectomy. Anesth Analg. 2002 Jul;95(1):158-62, table of contents. doi: 10.1097/00000539-200207000-00028.
- Background: PubMed 14710057O'Neal MG, Beste T, Shackelford DP. Utility of preemptive local analgesia in vaginal hysterectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003 Dec;189(6):1539-41; discussion 1541-2. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2003.10.691.
- Background: PubMed 20677480Penninx JP, Mol BW, Bongers MY. Endometrial ablation with paracervical block. J Reprod Med. 2009 Oct;54(10):617-20.
- Background: PubMed 27679246Skensved H. Combining Paracervical Block With a Complete Fundal Block Significantly Reduces Patients' Perception of Pain During Radio-Frequency Endometrial Ablation in an Office Setting. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2015 Nov-Dec;22(6S):S45. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2015.08.124. Epub 2015 Oct 15. No abstract available.
- Background: PubMed 24085642Tangsiriwatthana T, Sangkomkamhang US, Lumbiganon P, Laopaiboon M. Paracervical local anaesthesia for cervical dilatation and uterine intervention. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Sep 30;2013(9):CD005056. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD005056.pub3.
- Background: PubMed 20168127ACOG Committee Opinion No. 444: choosing the route of hysterectomy for benign disease. Obstet Gynecol. 2009 Nov;114(5):1156-1158. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181c33c72.
- BackgroundWong-Baker FACES Foundation (2016). Wong-Baker FACES® Pain Rating Scale. Retrieved 11/10/2016 with permission from http://www.WongBakerFACES.org
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Pain, Postoperative
RecruitingPhase 4
ESP Blocks for Posterior Spinal Fusion
Postoperative Pain
Recruiting
Effect of Cryotherapeutic and Nanotherapeutic Sodium Hypochlorite on Post-Operative Endodontic Pain.
Symptomatic Irreversible Pulpitis, Symptomatic Apical Periodontitis
RecruitingPhase 2
REctus Sheath Trial
Acute Pain, Postoperative Pain, Acute
Not yet recruiting
Effect of Pectoral Nerve Block (PECS) Using Magnesium Sulfate Added to Dexamethasone on Quality of Recovery and Chronic Post-Mastectomy Pain
Breast Cancer, Postoperative Pain
Active, not recruitingPhase 4
Effect of Dexmedetomidine on Postoperative Pain in Spinal Anesthesia for Cesarean Section at Assuit University Hospital
Cesarean Section
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.
Steven J Radtke, MD principal investigator
UT College of Medicine MIGS Fellow & Faculty
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A Phase 3 study testing Bupivacaine and 0.9% Sodium Chloride in people with Pain, Postoperative, run by University of Tennessee 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 3 inclusion and 5 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 15 Nov 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. Some participants in this study may receive a placebo. 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?
Yes. Results are posted in the registry (first posted 15 Nov 2018). A summary is in the For doctors view, and the full results are on ClinicalTrials.gov.
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?
Pain Reported on the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) at 30 Minutes Postoperative (time frame: 30 minutes post-operative stop time). 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 NCT03027661, which also lists 14 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 15 Nov 2018.