AzTrials
AzTrials

Spinal AnesthesiaNCT06656793

Impact of Real-Time Ultrasound-Guided Spinal Anesthesia Versus Landmark-Guided Spinal Anesthesia on Anesthesia Procedural Time

An observational study of Spinal Anesthesia, run by Tongji Hospital at 1 site in China.

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

Intraspinal anesthesia, traceable to the late 19th century, involves injecting local anesthetics into the spinal canal to block nerve signals, relieving pain and relaxing muscles for surgery. Read more about this study

Who is it for?
Any age
Conditions the study is for
Spinal Anesthesia
How many people
3,597 participants
Where
1 siteChina
Study dates
25 Jan 2025to 25 Jan 2025
Phase
Observational
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 Any age
  • All sexes
  • No healthy volunteers
  • Child, Adult, Older adult

Study population: All patients who received the real-time needle in needle technique UG-SA between 1 January 2019 and 29 May 2024.

Who may be able to join

  • None

Who cannot join

  • None

Trial locations and contacts

1 site in 1 country.

China1 site
  • Tongji hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology

    Wuhan, Hubei, 430030

Other trials in China

About this study

Intraspinal anesthesia, traceable to the late 19th century, involves injecting local anesthetics into the spinal canal to block nerve signals, relieving pain and relaxing muscles for surgery. Compared with general anesthesia, it has advantages: smaller impact on the central nervous system, lower drug dosage (reducing systemic poisoning risk), precise block plane control (protecting respiratory/cardiac function), and benefits for mothers and fetuses.

However, traditional blind puncture faces challenges in special patients (obese, post-spinal surgery, or pathological cases). It relies on "loss of sensory resistance," prone to misjudgment, leading to dura rupture or spinal cord injury. Obese pregnant women have hard-to-palpate spinous processes; the elderly have ligament calcification/narrowed intervertebral spaces, affecting positioning and ultrasound imaging.

Read more

Ultrasound guidance has advanced since 1984 (first used to measure epidural space depth, reducing complications). It aids obese pregnant women in locating spinal structures, guides pediatric epidural catheter placement, and improves first-attempt success with better resolution. Adjusting the ultrasound probe to a sagittal midline inner oblique angle solves imaging issues in elderly patients.

Clinically, 24G/25G fine needles for ultrasound-guided lumbar puncture may deform; the "needle-in-a-needle" technique (using a larger guide needle) reduces tissue damage and accidental dura puncture, while minimizing skin punctures.

Small-sample studies confirm ultrasound's value in vertebral localization and real-time guidance, but the efficacy of ultrasound vs. surface marking remains controversial due to lack of large-sample data. This article provides evidence-based reference via retrospective analysis of 3,597 cases.

Read the detailed description

The history of intraspinal anesthesia can be traced back to the late 19th century, when attempts were made to perform anesthesia through the spinal canal. Over time, this technique has been improved and refined, allowing local anesthetic drugs to be injected into the spinal canal, temporarily blocking the transmission of signals from the spinal cord and surrounding nerves. This effectively relieves pain in specific parts of the body, relaxes muscles, and meets the surgical needs. Therefore, intraspinal anesthesia has become an important part of modern anesthesia.

Compared with general anesthesia, intraspinal anesthesia has unique technical advantages: Firstly, it mainly acts on the spinal cord, having a smaller impact on the central nervous system; Secondly, the required drug dosage is smaller, less likely to cause systemic drug poisoning reactions; Moreover, by precisely controlling the block plane, it can maximize the protection of the patient's respiratory function and cardiac autonomic function, while avoiding respiratory system damage or infection, as well as cardiovascular and cerebrovascular complications caused by ventilation control or systemic drug stimulation. Furthermore, since the local anesthetic only acts on the spinal cord during the specific physiological delivery process for the mother, intraspinal anesthesia is very beneficial for both the mother and the fetus, making it almost always superior to other anesthesia methods.

However, for some special patients, such as obese patients, those with a history of spinal surgery, or those with pathological changes, the operation of intraspinal anesthesia poses challenges to the traditional blind puncture. The blind puncture method relies on the principle of "loss of sensory resistance", because for such patients, this perception may be misjudged, and multiple punctures may also lead to the rupture of the dura mater or spinal cord injury. In 1984, anesthesiologists first used ultrasound to measure the depth of the epidural space, providing preoperative guidance for the blind puncture operation, and through this improvement, the complications of blind puncture were significantly reduced. Ultrasound also showed advantages in the diagnosis of neonatal epidural hematoma. Although the resolution of the ultrasound images was low at that time, the range of abnormal dura structures was still clearly visible under ultrasound. Obesity in pregnant women is an important factor for blind puncture into the spinal canal. The increase in subcutaneous fat makes it difficult to palpate the spinous processes. In addition, the deep structures within the spinal canal also increase the uncertainty of blind puncture into the spinal canal. Scanning in the sagittal posterior midline approach helps determine the spinous processes, the number of vertebrae, the width of the intervertebral spaces, and the depth of the epidural space, thereby providing specific information about the intraspinal structures before blind puncture. Moreover, ultrasound can guide the placement of epidural catheters in children and confirm the appropriate height of the catheter. In recent years, more and more studies have pointed out that with the improvement of the resolution of ultrasound equipment, the success rate of the first puncture in ultrasound-guided abdominal puncture has significantly increased compared to the blind puncture group. Ultrasound can visualize part of the intraspinal structure and provide a new option for some complex intraspinal punctures. In addition, due to the reduction in the difficulty of intraspinal puncture operations by ultrasound guidance, more anesthesiologists tend to use this technique. For elderly patients, ligament calcification, narrowed intervertebral spaces, and stiff spinal joints can all affect the positioning of the body before spinal puncture and the quality of ultrasound imaging of intraspinal structures. Moreover, since the spinous processes may obstruct the epidural space, the posterior sagittal approach may not clearly display the posterior part of the dura mater. Although the transverse midline approach also reduces the exposure level of ligaments and the influence of spinous bones on the puncture path, the cross-section of ultrasound scanning still needs to pass through the ligament and spinous space required by the traditional blind method. Therefore, for patients with obvious intervertebral space calcification or narrow spinous space, the ultrasound examination of the epidural space still has problems. Based on this consideration, the angle of the ultrasound scan was improved. It was found that positioning the probe at the inner oblique position on the midline of the sagittal plane could effectively avoid these obstacles, thereby making the ultrasound image of the spinal canal clearer. This further reduced the difficulty of spinal canal puncture guided by ultrasound and improved the puncture efficiency. At the same time, the shape of the puncture needle was also clearer, facilitating real-time ultrasound-guided spinal canal puncture.

Currently, the ultrasound-guided spinal subarachnoid anesthesia (lumbar anesthesia) puncture needles we use are generally 24G or 25G fine needles. For ligament calcification or resistant punctures, the fine needle body is prone to deformation or bending. Therefore, we use a larger injection needle as the guiding needle for lumbar anesthesia, that is, the "needle in a needle" technique. This technique avoids the tissue damage caused by directly using the dural puncture needle as the guiding needle and reduces the risk of accidental spinal dural puncture. At the same time, we can directly use the needle tip at the puncture point in the lumbar anesthesia kit for local anesthesia and continue to place it under the skin as the guiding needle after injecting subcutaneous local anesthetic, to avoid multiple skin punctures. With the assistance of the low-frequency ultrasound probe, the straight advancement of the local anesthesia needle can also help us determine the puncture direction.

Previous small sample studies have confirmed that ultrasound can assist in locating the vertebral segment, judging the depth and visibility of the dura mater, and providing real-time guidance for abdominal puncture or epidural catheter insertion. All of the above application methods have been proven to significantly improve the puncture success rate, shorten the puncture time, and reduce the puncture difficulty. However, the differences in the application effects of surface marking positioning and real-time ultrasound guidance in spinal canal anesthesia still remain controversial. Up to now, there is no large sample study comparing the clinical application effects of ultrasound real-time guidance vs. surface marking lumbar anesthesia techniques for analysis.

This article provides an evidence-based medical reference by retrospectively reporting 3597 cases of the clinical application of ultrasound real-time guidance vs. surface marking lumbar anesthesia techniques in patients.

What participants receive

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

Study groups in NCT06656793
Study groupRoleWhat they receive
RT-SAReal-Time Ultrasound-Guided Spinal Anesthesia
LM-SALandmark-Guided Spinal Anesthesia

What is being measured

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

  1. Door to skin time (Dts)

    The time from when the patient enters the operating room until the skin incision is made.

    Measured: From 1 January 2019 to 29 May 2024

Secondary outcomes (15)
  1. Operative duration

    The duration of operative procedure

    Measured: From the incision to the completion of the surgery

  2. Anaesthetic duration

    The duration of anesthesia procedure

    Measured: From the beginning of ultrasound guided spinal anesthesia (UG-SA) to the end of anesthesia

  3. PACU duration

    The duration of PACU stay

    Measured: The time from entering PACU to exiting PACU

  4. Blood loss

    Blood loss during opeartion

    Measured: During operation

  5. Other complications

    Complications related to spinal anesthesia

    Measured: During operation

  6. Intraspinal dosage of local anesthetics

    Local anesthetics administrated intraspinal space

    Measured: During operation

  7. Sedation administration (Yes or No)

    Bolus administration or pumping administration

    Measured: During operation

  8. Remedial opioids (Yes or No)

    If the patient complains of pain during surgery, remedial opioids are administered intravenously

    Measured: During operation

  9. Vasoactive drugs administration (Yes or No)

    Vasoactive drugs administrated to avoid HR and BP decreased by more than 20%

    Measured: During operation

  10. Vertebral level of intraspinal puncture

    Intervertebral segment selected by the anesthesiologist for puncture

    Measured: From 1 January 2019 to 29 May 2024

  11. Time of ultrasound localization

    Time of ultrasound assessment and localization

    Measured: Before ultrasound guided spinal anesthesia (UG-SA) procedure

  12. Time of UG-SA

    The procedure time of UG-SA

    Measured: From the beginning to the end of the UG-SA

  13. Upper level of intraspinal block

    Presented by segmental innervation of spinal nerves

    Measured: 15 minutes after UG-SA

  14. Heart rate, HR

    HR data were recorded at 10, 20 and 30 minutes after spinal anesthesia

    Measured: 10, 20, and 30 minutes after UG-SA

  15. Systolic blood pressure, SBP

    SBP data were recorded at 10, 20 and 30 minutes after spinal anesthesia

    Measured: 10, 20, and 30 minutes after UG-SA

Timeline

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

  1. First posted24 Oct 2024
  2. Study start25 Jan 2025
  3. Primary completion25 Jan 2025
  4. Study completion25 Jan 2025

Resources

More details

For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.

Study design
Study type
Observational
Observational model
Cohort
Time perspective
Retrospective
Enrolment
3,597 participants (actual)
IDs, dates and publications
ClinicalTrials.gov ID
NCT06656793
Sponsor's protocol ID
Tongji Hospital102114-5
Status last verified
Sep 2025
First submitted
23 Oct 2024
Last updated
26 Sep 2025
Results posted
No
Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No

Questions about this trial

What is this clinical trial studying?

An observational study of Spinal Anesthesia, run by Tongji Hospital at 1 site in China.

The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.

Who may be eligible to take part?

The sponsor lists 1 inclusion and 1 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.

Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?

The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 26 Sep 2025. 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 China. 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?

Door to skin time (Dts) (time frame: From 1 January 2019 to 29 May 2024). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.

Where can I read the original study information?
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 26 Sep 2025.

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