Diese Seite wurde automatisch übersetzt und die Genauigkeit der Übersetzung wird nicht garantiert. Bitte wende dich an die englische Version für einen Quelltext.

Erector Spinae Plane vs Serratus Anterior Plane Catheter Infusions for Acute Pain Management in Patients With Traumatic Rib Fractures

4. August 2026 aktualisiert von: Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre

Erector Spinae Plane vs Serratus Anterior Plane Catheter Infusions for Acute Pain Management in Patients With Traumatic Rib Fractures: a Single Centre, Randomized Controlled Trial

Rib fractures happen in about 10-20% of patients with blunt trauma and can be serious, with higher death rates in older adults. These injuries often lead to lung problems like pneumonia, collapsed lung areas (atelectasis), fluid buildup, or even respiratory failure. A major reason for this is pain-patients avoid deep breathing and coughing, which worsens lung function. Good pain control helps prevent these complications.

Opioids are commonly used for pain but can cause problems such as slowed breathing, delirium, nausea, and longer time on a ventilator. Because of this, regional anesthesia (nerve blocks) is increasingly used to control pain while reducing opioid use. Common options include epidurals, paravertebral blocks, and newer techniques like erector spinae plane (ESP) and serratus anterior plane (SAP) blocks. Continuous catheter techniques are especially useful in trauma patients because they can provide ongoing pain relief and have fewer contraindications than epidurals.

The SAP block is done at the side of the chest and works well for rib fractures in the front and side. It may not work as well for fractures in the back, although trauma may sometimes allow the anesthetic to spread further than expected.

The ESP block is done near the spine and may cover a broader area, including both front and back of the chest. It is relatively easy to perform at the bedside and is considered safe. Studies suggest it provides pain relief similar to epidurals in some patients.

There is still limited evidence directly comparing continuous SAP and ESP catheters. Only one study (using single injections) suggests ESP may provide better pain relief. It is unclear whether that difference holds true with continuous infusions, or whether SAP might be preferable because it is easier and quicker to perform.

We propose a randomized trial comparing continuous ESP and SAP catheters in patients with rib fractures to determine which provides better pain control, reduces opioid use, improves breathing outcomes, and is easier to perform in routine practice.

Our hypotheses are that ESP will provide better pain relief, SAP will be easier and safer to place, and both techniques will reduce opioid use while maintaining good patient comfort and breathing.

Studienübersicht

Detaillierte Beschreibung

Traumatic rib fractures occur in 10%-20% of blunt trauma patients and are associated with significant mortality (22% and 10%, in the elderly and young patients, respectively). Patients with rib fractures are predisposed to multiple pulmonary complications including pneumonia, aspiration, pleural effusion, pulmonary embolism, atelectasis and acute respiratory distress syndrome. Effective analgesia, albeit challenging, has been found to reduce the incidence of those complications. It is postulated that pulmonary complications occur post rib fractures due to impaired pulmonary mechanics, inappropriate clearance of secretions, and atelectasis; hence the need for adequate and affective pain control.

Opioids are commonly used for analgesia in critically ill patients but they carry notable adverse effects including: respiratory depression, hemodynamic instability, tolerance, hyperalgesia, delirium and gastrointestinal side effects. They are also associated with prolonged mechanical ventilation, counteracting goals for rib fracture management. Therefore, alternative analgesic option such as regional anesthesia techniques have gained more popularity. Regional anesthetic blocks can improve analgesia and reduce opioid requirements. Options for rib fractures include thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA), paravertebral block, intercostal block, erector spinae plane block (ESP), and serratus anterior plane block (SAP).

Continuous peripheral nerve blockage has gained more popularity in trauma settings; especially continuous fascial plane catheters which can offer effective analgesia without many contraindications associated with thoracic epidurals. Frequent contraindications to thoracic epidural blocks in trauma populations have driven interest in alternative analgesic modalities such as continuous fascial plane infusions, despite the lower pneumonia rates that are associated with thoracic epidural analgesia.

Serratus Anterior Plane Block (SAP Block): The SAP block is an ultrasound guided block that involves the injection of local anesthetic superficial to the serratus anterior muscle in the mid axillary line. It provides effective analgesia for patients with anterolateral rib fractures but might be ineffective for posterior rib fractures. It consistently involves the lateral cutaneous branches of intercostal nerves, which innervate the superficial anterolateral chest wall. It might spare the intercostal nerves supplying the posterior ribs and intercostal muscles. However, a cadaveric study showed that disruption of tissue planes in trauma may promote deeper spread of local anesthetic reaching the intercostal nerves and reaching the posterior rib space.

Erector Spinae Plane Block (ESP Block): The ESP block is an ultrasound guided block which involves injection of local anesthetic into the erector spinae fascial plane. It is thought to work by blocking the lateral cutaneous and intercostal nerves with potential diffusion into the paravertebral space. It is technically easy and can be performed at bedside. Risks are low, particularly when performed under ultrasound guidance, and include hypotension, vascular puncture, contralateral spread via the epidural space, and pneumothorax. A continuous nerve catheter is typically used for rib fractures with the goal of inserting the needle midpoint of the rib levels. A randomized trial has showed that continuous ESP block is as effective is thoracic epidural analgesia for pain control in patients with unilateral rib fractures.

Addressing evidence gaps: A recent scoping review published by our research group indicated that SAP and ESP are the most common regional anesthesia techniques for acute traumatic rib fractures. There has been one head-to-head study comparing SAP to ESP that demonstrated superior analgesia in favour of ESP for traumatic rib fractures however it was designed as a single injection study. Given that the SAP catheter is potentially easier to perform (i.e., no need to place patient in lateral decubitus position and shallower sonographic target), is ESP superior to SAP catheter infusion to warrant the additional time and effort? To our best knowledge, no prospective comparative studies on SAP and ESP catheters have directly evaluated analgesic efficacy, opioid consumption, respiratory outcomes, and ease of performance between these two catheter techniques in a systematic manner. Understanding which technique provides superior analgesia while remaining technically straightforward for widespread implementation is critical for standardizing regional anesthesia practice in rib fracture management. We propose a pragmatic, randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing ESP and SAP to identify the best regional anesthesia catheter technique regardless of the pattern of rib fracture (anterior vs. posterior) and to allow adoption of a single technique to facilitate streamlined care. This knowledge gap represents an important opportunity to advance our understanding of the two established techniques in this trauma population.

Studientyp

Interventionell

Einschreibung (Geschätzt)

66

Phase

  • Unzutreffend

Kontakte und Standorte

Dieser Abschnitt enthält die Kontaktdaten derjenigen, die die Studie durchführen, und Informationen darüber, wo diese Studie durchgeführt wird.

Studienkontakt

Studieren Sie die Kontaktsicherung

Studienorte

    • Ontario
      • Toronto, Ontario, Kanada, M4N 3M5
        • Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre
        • Kontakt:
        • Hauptermittler:
          • Howard Meng, MD

Teilnahmekriterien

Forscher suchen nach Personen, die einer bestimmten Beschreibung entsprechen, die als Auswahlkriterien bezeichnet werden. Einige Beispiele für diese Kriterien sind der allgemeine Gesundheitszustand einer Person oder frühere Behandlungen.

Zulassungskriterien

Studienberechtigtes Alter

  • Erwachsene
  • Älterer Erwachsener

Akzeptiert gesunde Freiwillige

Nein

Beschreibung

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Age >18;
  • Traumatic rib fractures (unilateral or bilateral);
  • Minimum of 3 rib fractures per side;
  • Admitted to hospital for <72 hours
  • NRS pain score > 4 at rest or with movement for chest pain at the time of eligibility assessment

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Severe traumatic brain injury (Glasgow Coma Scale < 9);
  • Surgery performed/planned within 72 hours of catheter infusion start;
  • Uncontrolled coagulopathy;
  • Skin infection or anatomical abnormality (i.e. open fracture) at insertion sites;
  • Allergy to local anesthetic;
  • Chronic high dose opioid use preadmission (Morphine Equivalent Dose > 30mg per day);
  • Pregnancy;
  • Acute respiratory failure requiring intubation at enrolment;
  • Inability to comply with Intravenous Patient-Controlled Analgesia use;
  • Contraindications to nerve blocks
  • High likelihood of loss to follow-up

Studienplan

Dieser Abschnitt enthält Einzelheiten zum Studienplan, einschließlich des Studiendesigns und der Messung der Studieninhalte.

Wie ist die Studie aufgebaut?

Designdetails

  • Hauptzweck: Behandlung
  • Zuteilung: Zufällig
  • Interventionsmodell: Parallele Zuordnung
  • Maskierung: Single

Waffen und Interventionen

Teilnehmergruppe / Arm
Intervention / Behandlung
Aktiver Komparator: Erector spinae plane catheter
Participants receive erector spinae plane catheter
Participants receive erector spinae plane catheter infusion
Experimental: Serratus plane catheter
Participants receive serratus anterior plane catheter
Participants receive serratus plane catheter infusion

Was misst die Studie?

Primäre Ergebnismessungen

Ergebnis Maßnahme
Maßnahmenbeschreibung
Zeitfenster
Pain with movement
Zeitfenster: 72 hours
Pain Numerical Rating Scale scores with movement from baseline through 72 hours post-placement. Numerical Rating Scale minimum is 0, maximum is 10, higher score = worse pain.
72 hours

Sekundäre Ergebnismessungen

Ergebnis Maßnahme
Maßnahmenbeschreibung
Zeitfenster
Total opioid consumption
Zeitfenster: 72 hours
Total opioid consumption (IV and oral) between the SAP and ESP groups at 24, 48, and 72 hours post-catheter placement
72 hours
Respiratory function
Zeitfenster: 72 hours
forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1), FEV1% of predicted, forced vital capacity (FVC), and peak inspiratory and expiratory flow will be measured using portable spirometry at baseline, 24 (± 4 hours), 48 (± 6 hours), and 72 (± 6 hours) hours post-catheter placement
72 hours
Ease of catheter insertion between techniques
Zeitfenster: At time of catheter insertion
Number of skin puncture attempts
At time of catheter insertion
Pain at rest
Zeitfenster: 72 hours
Pain Numerical Rating Scale scores at rest from baseline through 72 hours post-placement. Numerical Rating Scale minimum is 0, maximum is 10, higher score = worse pain.
72 hours
Procedure related complications
Zeitfenster: 72 hours
Procedural complications (vascular puncture, local anesthetic toxicity signs, pneumothorax, infection at insertion site).
72 hours
Duration of catheter insertion procedure
Zeitfenster: At the time of catheter insertion
Time from patient positioning to final catheter insertion and confirmation (in minutes)
At the time of catheter insertion

Andere Ergebnismessungen

Ergebnis Maßnahme
Maßnahmenbeschreibung
Zeitfenster
Patient satisfaction
Zeitfenster: 72 hours
Patient satisfaction scores using Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC)
72 hours
Catheter-related complications
Zeitfenster: 72 hours
Catheter-related complications including infection, dislodgement, local anesthetic toxicity, and pneumothorax within the 72 hour study period
72 hours
Catheter function
Zeitfenster: Through hospital admission, an average of 7 days
Duration of catheter function (days of infusion)
Through hospital admission, an average of 7 days
Hospital length of stay
Zeitfenster: Duration of hospital admission, an average of 7 days
Total hospital length of stay (measured in days)
Duration of hospital admission, an average of 7 days
Intensive care stay
Zeitfenster: Through hospital admission, an average of 7 days
Duration of intensive care stay
Through hospital admission, an average of 7 days
Pulmonary complications
Zeitfenster: Through hospital admission, an average of 7 days
Documented pneumonia, ARDS, need for mechanical ventilation
Through hospital admission, an average of 7 days

Mitarbeiter und Ermittler

Hier finden Sie Personen und Organisationen, die an dieser Studie beteiligt sind.

Studienaufzeichnungsdaten

Diese Daten verfolgen den Fortschritt der Übermittlung von Studienaufzeichnungen und zusammenfassenden Ergebnissen an ClinicalTrials.gov. Studienaufzeichnungen und gemeldete Ergebnisse werden von der National Library of Medicine (NLM) überprüft, um sicherzustellen, dass sie bestimmten Qualitätskontrollstandards entsprechen, bevor sie auf der öffentlichen Website veröffentlicht werden.

Haupttermine studieren

Studienbeginn (Geschätzt)

1. August 2026

Primärer Abschluss (Geschätzt)

31. Dezember 2027

Studienabschluss (Geschätzt)

30. Juni 2028

Studienanmeldedaten

Zuerst eingereicht

3. Juli 2026

Zuerst eingereicht, das die QC-Kriterien erfüllt hat

4. August 2026

Zuerst gepostet (Tatsächlich)

10. August 2026

Studienaufzeichnungsaktualisierungen

Letztes Update gepostet (Tatsächlich)

10. August 2026

Letztes eingereichtes Update, das die QC-Kriterien erfüllt

4. August 2026

Zuletzt verifiziert

1. Juni 2026

Mehr Informationen

Begriffe im Zusammenhang mit dieser Studie

Plan für individuelle Teilnehmerdaten (IPD)

Planen Sie, individuelle Teilnehmerdaten (IPD) zu teilen?

NEIN

Arzneimittel- und Geräteinformationen, Studienunterlagen

Studiert ein von der US-amerikanischen FDA reguliertes Arzneimittelprodukt

Nein

Studiert ein von der US-amerikanischen FDA reguliertes Geräteprodukt

Nein

Diese Informationen wurden ohne Änderungen direkt von der Website clinicaltrials.gov abgerufen. Wenn Sie Ihre Studiendaten ändern, entfernen oder aktualisieren möchten, wenden Sie sich bitte an register@clinicaltrials.gov. Sobald eine Änderung auf clinicaltrials.gov implementiert wird, wird diese automatisch auch auf unserer Website aktualisiert .

Abonnieren