Dispersion Following ESP Versus ITP Blocks Using Lidocaine Study
NCT06843343 · Status: COMPLETED · Phase: PHASE4 · Type: INTERVENTIONAL · Enrollment: 13
Last updated 2025-08-28
Summary
Regional anesthesia techniques (or nerve blocks) are used to provide sensory blockade over the chest wall. The most established technique is thoracic epidural. This provides bilateral spread but is also associated with neuraxial complications, which has led to a decrease in clinical usage. Alternative peripheral nerve block techniques, such as intercostal nerve blocks, eliminate the neuraxial complications but, in turn, require numerous injections to provide unilateral coverage. The introduction of ultrasound-guided (USG) nerve blocks has generated clinical interest in the development of novel paraspinal (non-epidural) nerve block techniques, which will provide multiple dermatomal coverage with a single injection. Two such techniques are the Erector Spinae Plane (ESP) block and the Intertransverse Process (ITP) block. The Intertransverse Process (ITP) block targets a slightly deeper plane than the Erector Spinae Plane (ESP) block and was specifically designed to address the ESP block's variable anesthetic spread. Despite its potential for more localized and precise dermatomal coverage, no prior studies have directly compared the two techniques in terms of their cutaneous distribution.
Thus, this randomized, double-blinded trial aims to compare the cutaneous distribution of both these blocks in healthy adult volunteers. To compare the dermatomal sensory block distribution, the investigators will use detailed mapping with pinprick, cold, and heat stimuli.
In addition to assessing the distribution and coverage of the ESP and ITP blocks, this study also seeks to investigate the pharmacokinetics (PK) of lidocaine in each technique. The rationale for this lies in the anatomical differences between the two blocks. Theoretically, there may be a difference in the anatomical target for both blocks, but the investigators hypothesize that there is no difference in the local anesthetic absorption. Therefore, the investigators expect similar systemic absorption, the chances of local anesthetic systemic toxicity (LAST) should be equally low, and both blocks should be similarly safe.
A total of 14-18 healthy adult volunteers will be included. There will be two different procedure days, separated by at least one week. On each day, the subjects will receive a paraspinal block, according to the randomization process. Each volunteer will undergo pre-procedure screening on the first visit. The blocks will be performed on the same side, at the same level, by the same anesthesiologist, at least one week apart. An ultrasound-guided ESP block will be administered in one day, and an ITP block on the other. The order will be randomized, and both the subject and the research team member assessing the block will be blinded. Sensory testing will be performed at baseline and 60-90 minutes after the block injections. Serial samples of blood will be drawn to analyze lidocaine PK (between 0 and 240 minutes post-block).
Conditions
- Acute Pain, Postoperative
- Regional Anesthesia Block
Interventions
- PROCEDURE
-
Intertransverse Process Block with 1.5% Lidocaine
For the ITP block, the needle will be advanced further into the intertransverse tissue complex between the T4 and T5 transverse processes, and local anesthetic will be injected just above the superior costotransverse ligament, under ultrasound guidance.
- PROCEDURE
-
Erector Spinae Plane Block with 1.5% Lidocaine
The ESP block will be performed by advancing the needle to the transverse process, under ultrasound guidance, with local anesthetic injected between the erector spinae muscle and the transverse process, targeting a caudad-cephalad spread.
- DRUG
-
1.5% Lidocaine
local anesthetic to be used in either the ITP and ESP block
Sponsors & Collaborators
- lead OTHER
Principal Investigators
-
Brian Mendelson, MD · Duke University
Study Design
- Allocation
- RANDOMIZED
- Purpose
- OTHER
- Masking
- DOUBLE
- Model
- PARALLEL
Eligibility
- Min Age
- 18 Years
- Sex
- ALL
- Healthy Volunteers
- Yes
Timeline & Regulatory
- Start
- 2025-06-10
- Primary Completion
- 2025-07-26
- Completion
- 2025-08-01
- FDA Drug
- Yes
Countries
- United States
Study Locations
More Related Trials
-
Effect of Erector Spinae (ESP) Block on Opioid Reduction and Enhanced Recovery After Posterior Cervical Spine Surgery
NCT04646707 ·Status: RECRUITING ·Phase: NA
-
Dexmedetomidine and Morphine as Adjuvants to US Guided Erector Spinae Plane Blocks in Elective Thoracic Surgeries
NCT05843344 ·Status: UNKNOWN ·Phase: NA
-
Intravenous(IV) vs. Erector Spinae Plane Blocks in Cardiac Surgery
NCT04995497 ·Status: COMPLETED ·Phase: PHASE2
-
Erector Spinae Plane Block With Bupivacaine for Medical Thoracoscopy
NCT06313632 ·Status: TERMINATED ·Phase: PHASE3
-
Erector Spinae Plane Block Versus Conventional Analgesia in Complex Spine Surgery
NCT04156581 ·Status: COMPLETED ·Phase: PHASE4
-
Study of Exparel Versus Epidural for Pain Control After Thoracotomy
NCT02178553 ·Status: COMPLETED ·Phase: PHASE4
-
ESP Block vs Control for Pain Control Following Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy
NCT05024344 ·Status: RECRUITING ·Phase: NA
-
Erector Spinae Versus Intercostal Nerve Blocks With Liposomal Bupivacaine for Analgesia in Thoracic Surgery
NCT06810375 ·Status: RECRUITING ·Phase: PHASE3
-
Regional Anesthesia for Cardiothoracic Enhanced Recovery
NCT03781440 ·Status: UNKNOWN ·Phase: NA
-
Erector Spinae Block Versus Surgeon Infiltration in VATS Procedures
NCT03859635 ·Status: COMPLETED ·Phase: PHASE3
-
Comparison of Perineural Dexamethasone Versus Dexmedetomidine as Adjuvants to Erector Spinae Plane Block in Lumbar Spine Surgery: A Randomized, Double-blind, Controlled Trial
NCT07180940 ·Status: RECRUITING ·Phase: PHASE4
-
Utility of Exparel Based ESP Blocks in Elective Posterior Spine Fusion
NCT06107660 ·Status: NOT_YET_RECRUITING ·Phase: PHASE4
-
GA + ESP vs. SA + ESP in Lumbar Decompression Surgeries
NCT05444751 ·Status: ENROLLING_BY_INVITATION ·Phase: PHASE3
-
Erector Spinae Plane (ESP) Block vs Intravenous Lignocaine Infusion in (VATS)
NCT06289790 ·Status: COMPLETED ·Phase: NA
-
REctus Sheath Trial
NCT07068243 ·Status: NOT_YET_RECRUITING ·Phase: PHASE2
-
RCT Comparing ESPB Solutions in Breast Surgery
NCT04603911 ·Status: COMPLETED ·Phase: PHASE2
-
Analgesic Efficacy of Intravenous Lidocaine for Postoperative Pain Following Adult Spine Surgery
NCT01043211 ·Status: WITHDRAWN ·Phase: NA
-
Regional Anesthesia in Minimally Invasive Lumbar Spine Surgery
NCT05029726 ·Status: RECRUITING ·Phase: PHASE4
-
Thoracic Surgery Intercostal Block Trial With Liposomal vs. Hydrochloride Bupivacaine
NCT07134660 ·Status: RECRUITING ·Phase: NA
-
Bupivacaine/Epinephrine +Dexamethasone vs. Liposomal Bupivacaine
NCT03906617 ·Status: RECRUITING ·Phase: PHASE4
-
Contrast and Anesthetic Level With Lumbar Erector Spinae Plan (ESP) Block
NCT07174440 ·Status: RECRUITING ·Phase: NA
-
The Feasibility of Performing Erector Spinae (ESP) Nerve Block in Bariatric Patients; a Case Series Study
NCT04477525 ·Status: WITHDRAWN ·Phase: PHASE2
-
Effects of Continuous ESP Catheters on Recovery, Pain and Opioid Consumption After Multilevel Spine Surgery
NCT05494125 ·Status: TERMINATED ·Phase: NA
-
Peri-Incisional Drug Injection in Lumbar Spine Surgery
NCT03513445 ·Status: WITHDRAWN ·Phase: PHASE3
-
A Study of Bupivacaine Liposome Injection in the Treatment of Pain After Thoracoscopic Surgery
NCT06529432 ·Status: RECRUITING ·Phase: PHASE2