Impact of the Ultrasound-guided Approach on the Efficiency and Safety of the Stellate Ganglion Block in Chronic Pain

February 21, 2020 updated by: Veronique Brulotte, Maisonneuve-Rosemont Hospital

The first purpose of this study is to compare the effectiveness of the stellate ganglion block realized with two different approaches (blind and ultrasound-guided) in patients with a diagnosis of complex regional pain syndrome.

The second purpose of this study is to determine the safest approach and to compare the safety profiles of the two approaches.

Study Overview

Detailed Description

To evaluate whether the ultrasound guided approach is more effective than the blind technique in producing a greater than 1.5 degree Celsius rise in ipsilateral arm temperature after a stellate ganglion block.

Blocks will both be performed with 10 mL of xylocaine/bupivacaine. Secondary outcomes will be the impact of the approach (blind vs ultrasound) on pain reduction, horner syndrome, side effects (hoarseness, dysphagia, pharyngeal discomfort) and complications (blood aspiration, intravascular injection).

Study Type

Interventional

Enrollment (Actual)

3

Phase

  • Not Applicable

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Locations

    • Quebec
      • Montreal, Quebec, Canada, H1T2M4
        • Maisonneuve-Rosemont Hospital

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Ages Eligible for Study

18 years to 80 years (Adult, Older Adult)

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Genders Eligible for Study

All

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Patients aged 18 to 80 years
  • Patients with a new or known diagnosis of complex regional pain syndrome (according to the criteria of Budapest) at the upper extremity

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Refusal of a patient
  • Coagulopathy
  • Systemic infection or local infection at the needle injection site
  • Major deformation at the level of the neck (radiotherapy, surgery, etc. )
  • Concomitant chronic pain syndrome
  • Post-pneumonectomy on the controlateral side
  • Severe hepatic impairment or severe renal impairment (Clcr under 30 ml/min)
  • Known allergy to local anesthetics of amide type
  • Inability to understand a numeric pain scale

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

  • Primary Purpose: Treatment
  • Allocation: Randomized
  • Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
  • Masking: Double

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm
Intervention / Treatment
Active Comparator: Blind technique
Stellate ganglion block using the anterior paratracheal approach using surface landmarks.
A mixture of 3 mL of 2% lidocaine and 7 mL of 0.5% bupivacaine is used for both approaches (blind and ultrasound-guided).
Active Comparator: Ultrasound-guided technique
Stellate ganglion block using the ultrasound-guided lateral approach at the sixth cervical vertebral level.
A mixture of 3 mL of 2% lidocaine and 7 mL of 0.5% bupivacaine is used for both approach (blind and ultrasound-guided).

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Time Frame
proportion of patients reaching >1.5 °C rise in ipsilateral arm temperature
Time Frame: thirty minutes after block
thirty minutes after block

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Complications
Time Frame: Time of the block to one week after the block
Seizure, loss of consciousness with apnea, hematoma, recurrent laryngeal nerve injury, phrenic nerve paralysis, pneumothorax, weakness of the ipsilateral upper limb, foreign body sensation
Time of the block to one week after the block

Other Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Severity of pain
Time Frame: Immediately and each day after the block until one week after the block
The severity of the pain will be evaluated before the block and each day after the block for one week using a numeric rating scale (0-10).
Immediately and each day after the block until one week after the block

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Investigators

  • Principal Investigator: Veronique Brulotte, MD, MSC, FRCPC, Maisonneuve-Rosemont Hospital

Publications and helpful links

The person responsible for entering information about the study voluntarily provides these publications. These may be about anything related to the study.

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start

September 1, 2013

Primary Completion (Actual)

October 1, 2019

Study Completion (Actual)

October 1, 2019

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

September 26, 2013

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

September 26, 2013

First Posted (Estimate)

October 7, 2013

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Actual)

February 24, 2020

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

February 21, 2020

Last Verified

February 1, 2020

More Information

Terms related to this study

Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)

Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?

NO

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Clinical Trials on Complex Regional Pain Syndromes

Clinical Trials on Blind technique

3
Subscribe