Labor PainNCT05217134
Sacral Spread of Sensory Block After Dural Puncture Epidural Technique Compared With Epidural for Labour Analgesia
A study testing DPEA in people with Labor Pain and Analgesia, run by Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS at 2 sites in Italy.
Trial summary
Neuraxial labor analgesia is a very widely used technique for labor pain relief with a high efficacy and safety. EA (Epidural analgesia) can guarantee a proper control of pain in 95-100% of cases in the first stage of labor, but in the second stage his efficacy is not always adequate. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and older, women only
- Conditions the study is for
- Labor Pain, Analgesia
- What is being tested?
- DPEA
- Type of treatment
- Surgery or procedure
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 108 participants
- Where
- 2 sitesItaly
- Study dates
- 1 Mar 2022to 1 Sep 2022
- 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 years and older
- Women only
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- nulliparous;
- 36 - 42 gestational week;
- active stage of labor;
- less than 5 cm cervical dilatation.
Who cannot join
- < 18 years;
- ASA > 2;
- refusal of informed consent;
- known fetal pathologies;
- conditions that contraindicate the execution of neuro axial analgesia techniques;
- uterine anomalies or previous uterine surgery;
Show all 9Show fewer
- severe obesity;
- twin pregnancy;
- non-vertex fetal presentation.
Trial locations and contacts
2 sites in 1 country.
Italy2 sites
IRCCS Policlinico Agostino Gemelli
Rome, 00168
Luciano Frassanito
Rome, 00168
About this study
Official title: Sacral Anesthetic Block During Labor Analgesia With a With a 27-G Whitacre Spinal Needle - Dural Puncture Epidural Technique vs Standard Epidural Technique: a Randomized Controlled Study.
Neuraxial labor analgesia is a very widely used technique for labor pain relief with a high efficacy and safety. EA (Epidural analgesia) can guarantee a proper control of pain in 95-100% of cases in the first stage of labor, but in the second stage his efficacy is not always adequate. DPEA (Dural Puncture Epidural Analgesia) is a variation of the conventional EA and technically a modified version of the CSE (Combined Spinal Epidural) analgesia.
When compared with the traditional EA, DPEA showed satisfying, effective and fast control of labor pain, no motor block and less need for anesthetic boluses given through the epidural catheter when the maintenance of analgesia was guaranteed with manual top-ups, as well as less request for extra boluses of anesthetic when PIEB (Programmed Intermittent Epidural Boluses) was chosen for the maintenance of analgesia. Studies proved that DPEA is a safe technique and no statistically significant incidence of side effects for mothers and fetuses was observed.
Read more
The hypothesis of this study is that a DPEA performed with a 27 G Whitacre spinal needle can especially improve the spread in the sacral region.
The primary outcome of this study is to evaluate whether the DPEA performed with a 27-G Whitacre spinal needle is more effective in ensuring satisfying analgesia as a result of a better sacral analgesic spread, compared to the traditional EA.
Read the detailed description
Labor pain is acute pain, with a sudden onset, limited duration, high intensity and an evolving character consisting of a visceral and a somatic component1. Many dermatomes are involved, unlike other pain syndromes.
In the first stage of labor, pain is caused by the contraction of the uterine fibers and by the stretching and dilation of the cervix and the lower uterine segment. When labor proceeds towards the active phase of the first stage, corresponding to a dilation of 3-4 cm, the pain becomes more severe, and extends to the contiguous dermatomes T10 and L1. The pain generated at this moment is visceral, dull, indistinct, difficult to locate, "referred" to skin areas far from the site of pain stimulation and most of the time as "back pain". When the uterine cervix is fully dilated, the second stage of labor begins: the pain is due to the distension and stretching of the perineal structures in conjunction with fetal progression. This late pain originates from the perineum (deep somatic pain) and is conducted by type A-delta and C somatic myelin fibers, that through the pudendal nerves reach the posterior horns of the spinal cord via the posterior roots of the 2nd, 3rd and 4th sacral nerve.
Currently, neuraxial analgesia is a very widely used technique for labor pain relief with a high efficacy and safety. Neuraxial analgesia is administered through:
- continuous or intermittent epidural block
- continuous or single shot spinal or subarachnoid block
- combined spinal-epidural block (CSE). DPEA (Dural Puncture Epidural Analgesia) is a modified version of the CSE analgesia technique and at the same time a combination of CSE and EA (Epidural Analgesia). Despite the similarities, the management of labor analgesia with these techniques is profoundly different. DPEA does not allow the same rapid onset of CSE analgesia, since the administration of the intrathecal dose is omitted, but the induction and maintenance of analgesia are guaranteed by the epidural catheter as in the standard AE.
EA (Epidural analgesia) can guarantee a proper control of pain in 95-100% of cases in the first stage of labor, but in the second stage his efficacy is not always adequate.
DPEA is a variation of the conventional EA and technically a modified version of the CSE analgesia.
It is performed by making an intentional puncture of the dura mater with a spinal needle, that is inserted in the Tuohy needle previously placed in the epidural space, without any administration of intrathecal medications.
If compared with the traditional EA, DPEA showed satisfying, effective and fast control of labor pain, no motor block and less need for anesthetic boluses given through the epidural catheter when the maintenance of analgesia was guaranteed with manual top-ups, as well as less request for extra boluses of anesthetic when PIEB (Programmed Intermittent Epidural Boluses) was chosen for the maintenance of analgesia.
Studies proved that DPEA is a safe technique and no statistically significant incidence of side effects for mothers and fetuses was observed.
DPEA can't provide the same analgesia's fast onset of the CSE, as no medications are given in the intrathecal space7-8, but authors agree that DPEA produces a better quality of labor analgesia compared with the EA.
The advantages of the DPEA include: less cases of wrong placement of the epidural catheter because of the confirmation given by the cerebrospinal fluid return, more hemodynamic stability, less risk of unilateral block and consequent manipulation and replacement of the epidural catheter, but most of all, the spontaneous translocation of a certain amount of anesthetic from the epidural to the intrathecal space through the little hole made intentionally in the dura mater could improve the strength of the analgesia both in the first and in the second stage of labor.
After the the acquisition of informed consent, all the nulliparous, singleton, vertex presenting pregnant women in labor between the 36th and 42nd gestational week and with less than 5 cm cervical dilation will be randomized according to a computer-generated random number sequence to receive DPEA or EA.
For all pregnant women, an 18 G intravenous access will be positioned before performing the neuro-axial technique and fluid therapy with Ringer Lactate 1000 ml will be started. Non-invasive multiparametric monitoring will include pulse oximetry, NIBP (Non Invasive Blood Pressure) and CTG (Cardiotocography).
The epidural space will be identified in both groups with a Tuohy 18 G needle using the loss of resistance technique to saline with liquid syringe and the spinal needle (Whitacre 27 G) inserted using the "needle through needle" technique. In patients randomized to receive a DPEA, a single spinal needle puncture will be performed with confirmation of LCR return, while in the EA group no hole will be drilled in the dura mater.
A 20 G multi-orifice epidural catheter will be inserted 5 cm inside the peridural space. After negative suction test for blood and LCR, an initial dose of 15 ml of ropivacaine 0.1% + sufentanil 0,5 mcg /ml will be administered through the peridural catheter. The maintenance of analgesia will be guaranteed through a PIEB machine, that will give to the patient every hour a single bolus of 10 ml of ropivacaine 0,1% + sufentanil 0,5 mcg/ml. In case of insufficient analgesia (breakthrough pain, VAS > 4) a rescue dose of 10 ml of 0.13% ropivacaine will be administered.
A rescue dose of 10 ml of 0.15% ropivacaine will be used to treat breakthrough pain at complete cervical dilatation.
The sample will be described in its clinical and demographic characteristics through descriptive statistics techniques. In particular, the qualitative variables will be represented with absolute and percentage frequency tables; continuous quantitative variables with normal distribution, with mean, standard deviation or 95%confidence interval; non-normal variables will be represented with minimum, maximum and mean.
Missing data will be presented in the form of n (%). The normality of continuous variables will be verified with the Shapiro-Wilk test and will be adopted opportune modifications when requested. The variance's similarity will be verified with the sd test. The primary objective will be assessed by comparing the incidence of the sensitive perineal block in two groups of patients at fixed time points, reporting risk ratios, 95% confidence interval and p values through the Chi square test or the Fisher test for estimated < 5 frequencies. The same method will be used to evaluate the secondary outcomes' incidence. To compare the differences between continuous quantitative variables with a normal distribution the Student t-test for independent samples will be applied. For variables with non-normal distribution the Mann-Whitney non parametric test for independent samples will be performed. A p value <0.05 will be considered significant.
All analyzes will be performed with the statistical software STATA IC 15.
- Conditions
- Labor Pain, Analgesia
- Being tested
- DPEA
- Keywords
- Dural Puncture Epidural Analgesia, Sacral pain
- Medical subject headings
- Labor Pain, Agnosia
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
DPEAProcedure or surgery
Dural puncture with 27 G Whitacre needle
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Dural Puncture Epidural Analgesia (DPEA) | Experimental | A 27-Whitacre spinal needle puncture will be performed with confirmation of LCR return, before the introduction of epidural catheter. Receives: Procedure: DPEA |
| Epidural Analgesia (EA) | No intervention | Standard epidural anesthesia wil be performed. |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Evaluation of sensitive block through a pin-prik test in lumbar and sacral dermatomes.
Efficacy of sacral anesthetic block through a pin-prik test (0= no sensitive block, 2= complete block) in lumbar and sacral dermatomes: stimulation of the inguinal ligament (L1), the anterior portion of the thigh (L2), the medial surface of the knee (L3), the medial malleolus (L4), the back of the foot in the space between the first two metatarsal rays (L5), the lateral surface of the heel (S1) and the medial popliteal fossa (S2).
Measured: 20 minutes after completion of anesthesia.
Secondary outcomes (2)
Change of pain relief
Visual Analogue Pain Score (0=no pain, 10=the worst imaginable pain) throughout the labor
Measured: 10 minutes, 20 minutes, 30 minutes and then every 1 hour after completion of anesthesia.
Supplemental analgesia requirement
Total volume of anesthetic given as a rescue dose to treat episodes of breakthrough pain.
Measured: 20 minutes after delivery.
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted1 Feb 2022
- Study start1 Mar 2022
- Primary completion30 Jun 2022
- Study completion1 Sep 2022
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (8)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Labor PainStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCSThe 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
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Crossover
- Masking
- Double blind
- Who is masked
- Participant, Outcomes assessor
- Enrolment
- 108 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT05217134
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 4294
- Status last verified
- Oct 2022
- First submitted
- 29 Nov 2021
- Last updated
- 12 Oct 2022
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- Undecided
Publications
Gunaydin B, Erel S. How neuraxial labor analgesia differs by approach: dural puncture epidural as a novel option. J Anesth. 2019 Feb;33(1):125-130. doi: 10.1007/s00540-018-2564-y. Epub 2018 Oct 6.
PubMed 30293143Shmueli A, Salman L, Orbach-Zinger S, Aviram A, Hiersch L, Chen R, Gabbay-Benziv R. The impact of epidural analgesia on the duration of the second stage of labor. Birth. 2018 Dec;45(4):377-384. doi: 10.1111/birt.12355. Epub 2018 May 22.
PubMed 29790194Chau A, Bibbo C, Huang CC, Elterman KG, Cappiello EC, Robinson JN, Tsen LC. Dural Puncture Epidural Technique Improves Labor Analgesia Quality With Fewer Side Effects Compared With Epidural and Combined Spinal Epidural Techniques: A Randomized Clinical Trial. Anesth Analg. 2017 Feb;124(2):560-569. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000001798.
PubMed 28067707Contreras F, Morales J, Bravo D, Layera S, Jara A, Riano C, Pizarro R, De La Fuente N, Aliste J, Finlayson RJ, Tran DQ. Dural puncture epidural analgesia for labor: a randomized comparison between 25-gauge and 27-gauge pencil point spinal needles. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2019 May 22:rapm-2019-100608. doi: 10.1136/rapm-2019-100608. Online ahead of print.
PubMed 31118278Cappiello E, O'Rourke N, Segal S, Tsen LC. A randomized trial of dural puncture epidural technique compared with the standard epidural technique for labor analgesia. Anesth Analg. 2008 Nov;107(5):1646-51. doi: 10.1213/ane.0b013e318184ec14.
PubMed 18931227Thomas JA, Pan PH, Harris LC, Owen MD, D'Angelo R. Dural puncture with a 27-gauge Whitacre needle as part of a combined spinal-epidural technique does not improve labor epidural catheter function. Anesthesiology. 2005 Nov;103(5):1046-51. doi: 10.1097/00000542-200511000-00019.
PubMed 16249679Song Y, Du W, Zhou S, Zhou Y, Yu Y, Xu Z, Liu Z. Effect of Dural Puncture Epidural Technique Combined With Programmed Intermittent Epidural Bolus on Labor Analgesia Onset and Maintenance: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Anesth Analg. 2021 Apr 1;132(4):971-978. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000004768.
PubMed 32282386Frassanito L, Filetici N, Piersanti A, Vassalli F, Van De Velde M, Tsen LC, Zanfini BA, Catarci S, Ciancia M, Scorzoni M, Olivieri C, Draisci G. Sacral sensory blockade from 27-gauge pencil-point dural puncture epidural analgesia or epidural analgesia in laboring nulliparous parturients: a randomized controlled trial. Int J Obstet Anesth. 2024 Nov;60:104217. doi: 10.1016/j.ijoa.2024.104217. Epub 2024 Jun 14.
PubMed 39024984
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 12 Oct 2022. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Sacral Anesthetic Block During Labor Analgesia With a With a 27-G Whitacre Spinal Needle - Dural Puncture Epidural Technique vs Standard Epidural Technique: a Randomized Controlled Study.
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT05217134
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- 4294
- Conditions
- Labor Pain, Analgesia
- Keywords
- Dural Puncture Epidural Analgesia, Sacral pain
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 108 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCSUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 1 Mar 2022 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 30 Jun 2022 (actual)
- Study completion
- 1 Sep 2022 (actual)
- First posted
- 1 Feb 2022 (actual)
- 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.
Neuraxial labor analgesia is a very widely used technique for labor pain relief with a high efficacy and safety. EA (Epidural analgesia) can guarantee a proper control of pain in 95-100% of cases in the first stage of labor, but in the second stage his efficacy is not always adequate. DPEA (Dural Puncture Epidural Analgesia) is a variation of the conventional EA and technically a modified version of the CSE (Combined Spinal Epidural) analgesia.
When compared with the traditional EA, DPEA showed satisfying, effective and fast control of labor pain, no motor block and less need for anesthetic boluses given through the epidural catheter when the maintenance of analgesia was guaranteed with manual top-ups, as well as less request for extra boluses of anesthetic when PIEB (Programmed Intermittent Epidural Boluses) was chosen for the maintenance of analgesia. Studies proved that DPEA is a safe technique and no statistically significant incidence of side effects for mothers and fetuses was observed.
The hypothesis of this study is that a DPEA performed with a 27 G Whitacre spinal needle can especially improve the spread in the sacral region.
The primary outcome of this study is to evaluate whether the DPEA performed with a 27-G Whitacre spinal needle is more effective in ensuring satisfying analgesia as a result of a better sacral analgesic spread, compared to the traditional EA.
Detailed description
Labor pain is acute pain, with a sudden onset, limited duration, high intensity and an evolving character consisting of a visceral and a somatic component1. Many dermatomes are involved, unlike other pain syndromes.
In the first stage of labor, pain is caused by the contraction of the uterine fibers and by the stretching and dilation of the cervix and the lower uterine segment. When labor proceeds towards the active phase of the first stage, corresponding to a dilation of 3-4 cm, the pain becomes more severe, and extends to the contiguous dermatomes T10 and L1. The pain generated at this moment is visceral, dull, indistinct, difficult to locate, "referred" to skin areas far from the site of pain stimulation and most of the time as "back pain". When the uterine cervix is fully dilated, the second stage of labor begins: the pain is due to the distension and stretching of the perineal structures in conjunction with fetal progression. This late pain originates from the perineum (deep somatic pain) and is conducted by type A-delta and C somatic myelin fibers, that through the pudendal nerves reach the posterior horns of the spinal cord via the posterior roots of the 2nd, 3rd and 4th sacral nerve.
Currently, neuraxial analgesia is a very widely used technique for labor pain relief with a high efficacy and safety. Neuraxial analgesia is administered through:
- continuous or intermittent epidural block
- continuous or single shot spinal or subarachnoid block
- combined spinal-epidural block (CSE). DPEA (Dural Puncture Epidural Analgesia) is a modified version of the CSE analgesia technique and at the same time a combination of CSE and EA (Epidural Analgesia). Despite the similarities, the management of labor analgesia with these techniques is profoundly different. DPEA does not allow the same rapid onset of CSE analgesia, since the administration of the intrathecal dose is omitted, but the induction and maintenance of analgesia are guaranteed by the epidural catheter as in the standard AE.
EA (Epidural analgesia) can guarantee a proper control of pain in 95-100% of cases in the first stage of labor, but in the second stage his efficacy is not always adequate.
DPEA is a variation of the conventional EA and technically a modified version of the CSE analgesia.
It is performed by making an intentional puncture of the dura mater with a spinal needle, that is inserted in the Tuohy needle previously placed in the epidural space, without any administration of intrathecal medications.
If compared with the traditional EA, DPEA showed satisfying, effective and fast control of labor pain, no motor block and less need for anesthetic boluses given through the epidural catheter when the maintenance of analgesia was guaranteed with manual top-ups, as well as less request for extra boluses of anesthetic when PIEB (Programmed Intermittent Epidural Boluses) was chosen for the maintenance of analgesia.
Studies proved that DPEA is a safe technique and no statistically significant incidence of side effects for mothers and fetuses was observed.
DPEA can't provide the same analgesia's fast onset of the CSE, as no medications are given in the intrathecal space7-8, but authors agree that DPEA produces a better quality of labor analgesia compared with the EA.
The advantages of the DPEA include: less cases of wrong placement of the epidural catheter because of the confirmation given by the cerebrospinal fluid return, more hemodynamic stability, less risk of unilateral block and consequent manipulation and replacement of the epidural catheter, but most of all, the spontaneous translocation of a certain amount of anesthetic from the epidural to the intrathecal space through the little hole made intentionally in the dura mater could improve the strength of the analgesia both in the first and in the second stage of labor.
After the the acquisition of informed consent, all the nulliparous, singleton, vertex presenting pregnant women in labor between the 36th and 42nd gestational week and with less than 5 cm cervical dilation will be randomized according to a computer-generated random number sequence to receive DPEA or EA.
For all pregnant women, an 18 G intravenous access will be positioned before performing the neuro-axial technique and fluid therapy with Ringer Lactate 1000 ml will be started. Non-invasive multiparametric monitoring will include pulse oximetry, NIBP (Non Invasive Blood Pressure) and CTG (Cardiotocography).
The epidural space will be identified in both groups with a Tuohy 18 G needle using the loss of resistance technique to saline with liquid syringe and the spinal needle (Whitacre 27 G) inserted using the "needle through needle" technique. In patients randomized to receive a DPEA, a single spinal needle puncture will be performed with confirmation of LCR return, while in the EA group no hole will be drilled in the dura mater.
A 20 G multi-orifice epidural catheter will be inserted 5 cm inside the peridural space. After negative suction test for blood and LCR, an initial dose of 15 ml of ropivacaine 0.1% + sufentanil 0,5 mcg /ml will be administered through the peridural catheter. The maintenance of analgesia will be guaranteed through a PIEB machine, that will give to the patient every hour a single bolus of 10 ml of ropivacaine 0,1% + sufentanil 0,5 mcg/ml. In case of insufficient analgesia (breakthrough pain, VAS > 4) a rescue dose of 10 ml of 0.13% ropivacaine will be administered.
A rescue dose of 10 ml of 0.15% ropivacaine will be used to treat breakthrough pain at complete cervical dilatation.
The sample will be described in its clinical and demographic characteristics through descriptive statistics techniques. In particular, the qualitative variables will be represented with absolute and percentage frequency tables; continuous quantitative variables with normal distribution, with mean, standard deviation or 95%confidence interval; non-normal variables will be represented with minimum, maximum and mean.
Missing data will be presented in the form of n (%). The normality of continuous variables will be verified with the Shapiro-Wilk test and will be adopted opportune modifications when requested. The variance's similarity will be verified with the sd test. The primary objective will be assessed by comparing the incidence of the sensitive perineal block in two groups of patients at fixed time points, reporting risk ratios, 95% confidence interval and p values through the Chi square test or the Fisher test for estimated < 5 frequencies. The same method will be used to evaluate the secondary outcomes' incidence. To compare the differences between continuous quantitative variables with a normal distribution the Student t-test for independent samples will be applied. For variables with non-normal distribution the Mann-Whitney non parametric test for independent samples will be performed. A p value <0.05 will be considered significant.
All analyzes will be performed with the statistical software STATA IC 15.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Crossover
- Masking
- Double blind (participant, outcomes assessor)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Dural Puncture Epidural Analgesia (DPEA) | Experimental | Procedure: DPEAA 27-Whitacre spinal needle puncture will be performed with confirmation of LCR return, before the introduction of epidural catheter. |
| Epidural Analgesia (EA) | No intervention | –Standard epidural anesthesia wil be performed. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- Female only
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (4 listed)
- nulliparous;
- 36 - 42 gestational week;
- active stage of labor;
- less than 5 cm cervical dilatation.
Key exclusion criteria (9 listed)
- < 18 years;
- ASA > 2;
- refusal of informed consent;
- known fetal pathologies;
- conditions that contraindicate the execution of neuro axial analgesia techniques;
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 |
|---|---|---|
| DPEADural puncture with 27 G Whitacre needle | Procedure or surgery | Dural Puncture Epidural Analgesia (DPEA) |
Primary outcome
Evaluation of sensitive block through a pin-prik test in lumbar and sacral dermatomes.
Time frame: 20 minutes after completion of anesthesia.
Efficacy of sacral anesthetic block through a pin-prik test (0= no sensitive block, 2= complete block) in lumbar and sacral dermatomes: stimulation of the inguinal ligament (L1), the anterior portion of the thigh (L2), the medial surface of the knee (L3), the medial malleolus (L4), the back of the foot in the space between the first two metatarsal rays (L5), the lateral surface of the heel (S1) and the medial popliteal fossa (S2).
2 secondary outcomes
Change of pain relief
Time frame: 10 minutes, 20 minutes, 30 minutes and then every 1 hour after completion of anesthesia.
Supplemental analgesia requirement
Time frame: 20 minutes after delivery.
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 12 Oct 2022.
- Results publication: PubMed 30293143Gunaydin B, Erel S. How neuraxial labor analgesia differs by approach: dural puncture epidural as a novel option. J Anesth. 2019 Feb;33(1):125-130. doi: 10.1007/s00540-018-2564-y. Epub 2018 Oct 6.
- Results publication: PubMed 29790194Shmueli A, Salman L, Orbach-Zinger S, Aviram A, Hiersch L, Chen R, Gabbay-Benziv R. The impact of epidural analgesia on the duration of the second stage of labor. Birth. 2018 Dec;45(4):377-384. doi: 10.1111/birt.12355. Epub 2018 May 22.
- Results publication: PubMed 28067707Chau A, Bibbo C, Huang CC, Elterman KG, Cappiello EC, Robinson JN, Tsen LC. Dural Puncture Epidural Technique Improves Labor Analgesia Quality With Fewer Side Effects Compared With Epidural and Combined Spinal Epidural Techniques: A Randomized Clinical Trial. Anesth Analg. 2017 Feb;124(2):560-569. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000001798.
- Results publication: PubMed 31118278Contreras F, Morales J, Bravo D, Layera S, Jara A, Riano C, Pizarro R, De La Fuente N, Aliste J, Finlayson RJ, Tran DQ. Dural puncture epidural analgesia for labor: a randomized comparison between 25-gauge and 27-gauge pencil point spinal needles. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2019 May 22:rapm-2019-100608. doi: 10.1136/rapm-2019-100608. Online ahead of print.
- Results publication: PubMed 18931227Cappiello E, O'Rourke N, Segal S, Tsen LC. A randomized trial of dural puncture epidural technique compared with the standard epidural technique for labor analgesia. Anesth Analg. 2008 Nov;107(5):1646-51. doi: 10.1213/ane.0b013e318184ec14.
- Results publication: PubMed 16249679Thomas JA, Pan PH, Harris LC, Owen MD, D'Angelo R. Dural puncture with a 27-gauge Whitacre needle as part of a combined spinal-epidural technique does not improve labor epidural catheter function. Anesthesiology. 2005 Nov;103(5):1046-51. doi: 10.1097/00000542-200511000-00019.
- Results publication: PubMed 32282386Song Y, Du W, Zhou S, Zhou Y, Yu Y, Xu Z, Liu Z. Effect of Dural Puncture Epidural Technique Combined With Programmed Intermittent Epidural Bolus on Labor Analgesia Onset and Maintenance: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Anesth Analg. 2021 Apr 1;132(4):971-978. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000004768.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 39024984Frassanito L, Filetici N, Piersanti A, Vassalli F, Van De Velde M, Tsen LC, Zanfini BA, Catarci S, Ciancia M, Scorzoni M, Olivieri C, Draisci G. Sacral sensory blockade from 27-gauge pencil-point dural puncture epidural analgesia or epidural analgesia in laboring nulliparous parturients: a randomized controlled trial. Int J Obstet Anesth. 2024 Nov;60:104217. doi: 10.1016/j.ijoa.2024.104217. Epub 2024 Jun 14.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: Undecided
Related trials for Labor Pain
Recruiting
The Effect Of Partner-Assısted Rebozo Technıque On Labor Paın And Satısfactıon In Prımary Pregnant Women
Labor Pains
RecruitingPhase 4
Analgesic Efficacy and Obstetric Effects of Tramadol, Paracetamol and Placebo in Active Labor
Labor Pain
Not yet recruiting
Pre-Examination Reflexology for Anxiety and Pain During Pelvic Examination
Anxiety
Recruiting
Pain Neuroscience-Based Education for Labor Pain in Pregnant Women
Labor Pain and Anxiety
Recruiting
The Effect of Breast Milk, 10% and 20% Dextrose on Pain and Physiological Variables During Heel Puncture in Infants
Newborn Care, Pain Management
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.
The record lists no contact. Use the official record to reach the sponsor.
2 sites in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing DPEA in people with Labor Pain and Analgesia, run by Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS at 2 sites in Italy.
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 9 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 12 Oct 2022. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 2 sites in Italy. 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?
Evaluation of sensitive block through a pin-prik test in lumbar and sacral dermatomes. (time frame: 20 minutes after completion of anesthesia.). 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 NCT05217134, 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 12 Oct 2022.