"Ultrasound vs. Landmark Technique for Spinal Anesthesia in Obese Women Undergoing Cesarean Section"
Evaluation of Ultrasound Assisted Localisation of the Intervertebral Space Versus the Traditional Landmark Technique During Subarachnoid Block for Caesarean Section in Obese Parturient
The goal of this clinical trial is to evaluate whether the ultrasound-assisted technique improves the accuracy and safety of spinal anesthesia compared to the traditional landmark technique in obese women undergoing a cesarean section. The main questions it aims to answer are:
Does the ultrasound-assisted technique reduce the number of needle attempts required for successful spinal anesthesia? Does the ultrasound-assisted technique decrease the incidence of post-dural puncture headache (PDPH) and chronic low back pain at the needle insertion site? Does the ultrasound-assisted technique reduce procedure time compared to the landmark technique?
Participants will:
Receive spinal anesthesia using either the ultrasound-assisted technique or the traditional landmark technique for cesarean section.
Be monitored for the number of needle attempts, procedure time, and any post-operative complications such as PDPH or low back pain.
Follow up for three months after the procedure to assess any long-term effects, including chronic low back pain and quality of life.
調査の概要
状態
詳細な説明
This clinical trial is designed to compare two techniques for performing subarachnoid block (SAB) in obese women undergoing elective cesarean sections. The study aims to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of ultrasound-assisted spinal anesthesia versus the traditional landmark-guided technique. Both techniques are commonly used for regional anesthesia, but the effectiveness of ultrasound assistance in improving procedural accuracy, reducing complications, and enhancing the overall success rate in obese parturient has not been sufficiently studied.
Study Design
This is a randomized controlled trial conducted at the Obstetric Operating Theatre of Bangladesh Medical University (BMU). Participants will be randomly assigned to one of two groups: Group A (landmark technique) and Group B (ultrasound-assisted technique). The study will evaluate the following:
Primary Objective:
To assess the number of needle attempts required for successful subarachnoid block in both groups.
Secondary Objectives:
To evaluate the procedure time, incidence of post-dural puncture headache (PDPH), chronic low back pain at the needle insertion site, and quality of life related to pain.
Interventions
Both groups will receive the same local anesthetic agents for the SAB: 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine with 25 μg fentanyl. The techniques will differ in how the intervertebral space is located.
Group A (Landmark Technique): In this technique, the L3-L4 or L4-L5 intervertebral spaces will be identified using the traditional landmark method. The anesthesiologist will palpate the iliac crests to find Tuffier's line and will estimate the intervertebral space based on these bony landmarks.
Group B (Ultrasound-Assisted Technique): In this group, ultrasound guidance will be used to locate the intervertebral space. A low-frequency (2-5 MHz) curvilinear probe will be employed to visualize the lumbar spine. The procedure will include scanning the area to identify the midline, the interlaminar spaces, and the depth of the epidural and spinal spaces, ensuring that the correct intervertebral level is identified before needle insertion.
Randomization
Participants will be randomly assigned to one of the two intervention groups using Block randomization schedule. This will ensure that both groups are comparable at baseline and that the results are unbiased.
Procedure
Before the procedure, participants will undergo routine preoperative assessment, including fasting for 6 hours, intravenous line establishment, and monitoring. They will be positioned in a sitting position with a pillow for lumbar flexion. After preparing the skin with aseptic techniques, the spinal needle will be inserted according to the assigned technique.
In Group A, after identifying the L3-L4 or L4-L5 intervertebral space using the landmark technique, the anesthesiologist will administer the Subarachnoid Block (SAB). In Group B, ultrasound will be used to precisely identify the lumbar intervertebral spaces before needle insertion.
Follow-Up
Participants will be monitored for immediate postoperative complications, including Postdural puncture headache (PDPH), and will be assessed for chronic low back pain at the needle insertion after 3 months over phone. Additionally, the quality of life related to low back pain will be evaluated via phone interviews.
Expected Outcomes
The primary hypothesis is that the ultrasound-assisted technique will result in fewer needle attempts and a more accurate identification of the intervertebral space compared to the traditional landmark technique. Additionally, investigators expect to find that ultrasound assistance reduces the incidence of Postdural puncture headache (PDPH) and chronic low back pain, thereby improving the patient's overall quality of life postoperatively.
This trial will provide valuable insights into the effectiveness of ultrasound in improving the safety and accuracy of Subarachnoid Block (SAB) in obese parturient, potentially changing the standard of care in obstetric anesthesia for this patient population.
研究の種類
入学 (実際)
段階
- 適用できない
連絡先と場所
研究場所
-
-
-
Dhaka、バングラデシュ、1000
- Bangladesh Medical University
-
-
参加基準
適格基準
就学可能な年齢
- 子
- 大人
- 高齢者
健康ボランティアの受け入れ
説明
Inclusion Criteria:
- Elective caesarean section
- ASA physical status: Ⅱ
- Obese parturient (BMI ≥ 30.1 kg/m²)
Exclusion Criteria:
- Allergic to local anaesthetic (0.5% Bupivacaine hydrochloride with 8% Dextrose and 2 % Lidocaine hydrochloride USP)
- Preexisting neurological deficit by clinical examination
- Any contraindication to SAB
- History of scoliosis or spinal instrumentation
- Allergy to ultrasound transmission gel
研究計画
研究はどのように設計されていますか?
デザインの詳細
- 主な目的:他の
- 割り当て:ランダム化
- 介入モデル:並列代入
- マスキング:独身
武器と介入
参加者グループ / アーム |
介入・治療 |
|---|---|
|
アクティブコンパレータ:Group A: Landmark-Guided Spinal Anesthesia
In this arm, participants will receive subarachnoid block using the traditional landmark technique for spinal anesthesia.
The L3-L4 or L4-L5 intervertebral space will be identified by palpating the iliac crests to locate Tuffier's line, and the spinal needle will be inserted based on these bony landmarks.
The anesthetic agents administered will be 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine (10 mg) and 25 μg fentanyl (0.5 mL).
The procedure will be performed by experienced anesthesiologists.
|
This intervention involves the use of traditional anatomical landmarks to locate the correct intervertebral space for performing subarachnoid block (SAB).
The anesthesiologist identifies the L3-L4 or L4-L5 intervertebral space by palpating the iliac crests and using Tuffier's line as a reference.
A 25G Quincke needle is used for SAB, and 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine with 25 μg fentanyl is administered.
This technique is the standard approach used in many clinical settings for spinal anesthesia.
|
|
実験的:Group B: Ultrasound-Assisted Spinal Anesthesia
In this arm, participants will receive subarachnoid block using the ultrasound-assisted technique.
A low-frequency (2-5 MHz) curvilinear probe will be used to visualize the lumbar spine and identify the intervertebral space.
The correct intervertebral space (L3-L4 or L4-L5) will be identified using real-time ultrasound imaging.
The anesthetic agents administered will be 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine (10 mg) and 25 μg fentanyl (0.5 mL).
This procedure will also be performed by experienced anesthesiologists with expertise in neuraxial ultrasound.
|
This intervention utilizes ultrasound guidance to identify the correct intervertebral space for performing subarachnoid block (SAB).
A low-frequency (2-5 MHz) curvilinear ultrasound probe is used to visualize the lumbar spine in real-time, ensuring precise identification of the L3-L4 or L4-L5 intervertebral space.
The anesthesiologist places the needle based on ultrasound images that show the anatomical structures, such as the spinous processes and interlaminar spaces.
The same anesthetic agents (0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine and 25 μg fentanyl) are administered through a 25G Quincke needle for SAB.
|
この研究は何を測定していますか?
主要な結果の測定
結果測定 |
メジャーの説明 |
時間枠 |
|---|---|---|
|
Number of Needle Attempts for Successful Subarachnoid Block
時間枠:During the procedure, until successful spinal needle placement
|
his is the key measure in your study, as it directly assesses the effectiveness of the two anesthesia techniques (ultrasound-assisted vs. landmark-guided) in achieving successful spinal anesthesia.
Fewer needle attempts would indicate a higher success rate and a more efficient technique, making it the most critical outcome for evaluating the interventions.
|
During the procedure, until successful spinal needle placement
|
二次結果の測定
結果測定 |
メジャーの説明 |
時間枠 |
|---|---|---|
|
Needle Insertion Site Accuracy in landmark technique group
時間枠:Immediately after transferring the participants in the recovery room
|
This measure evaluates whether the correct intervertebral space was identified and the needle was inserted at the intended location.
Accuracy will be assessed using ultrasound imaging in the recovery room to verify the spinal leve
|
Immediately after transferring the participants in the recovery room
|
|
Procedure Duration in minutes
時間枠:During procedure
|
This outcome will assess the time taken to perform the spinal anesthesia procedure from the beginning of patient positioning for spinal anaesthesia to the successful Spinal Needle insertion.
|
During procedure
|
|
Incidence of Post-Dural Puncture Headache (PDPH)
時間枠:Postoperative period (up to 72 hours)
|
The incidence of PDPH will be recorded in the immediate postoperative period.
Participants will be monitored for symptoms such as headache, nausea, and neck stiffness, which are common after dural puncture.
|
Postoperative period (up to 72 hours)
|
|
Chronic Low Back Pain at Needle Insertion Site
時間枠:3 months post-procedure
|
Chronic low back pain at the needle insertion site will be evaluated via phone follow-up using the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) to assess pain intensity.
The impact on daily activities, including work, sleep disturbances, and mobility, will also be documented
|
3 months post-procedure
|
|
Impact of Chronic Low Back Pain on Quality of Life
時間枠:3 months post-procedure
|
Quality of life is assessed using the 12-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-12), a validated, widely used questionnaire measuring health-related quality of life across two domains: Physical Component Summary (PCS): captures physical functioning, bodily pain, and general physical health. Mental Component Summary (MCS): captures emotional well-being, social functioning, vitality, and mental health. Responses are collected via phone interview by trained study staff. Data are coded according to Short-Form-12 (SF-12) guidelines and aggregated into summary scores. Score Range: 0-100, with higher scores indicating better quality of life (less limitation or distress). |
3 months post-procedure
|
協力者と研究者
捜査官
- スタディディレクター:AKM Akhtaruzzaman, MD、Bangladesh Medical University
出版物と役立つリンク
一般刊行物
- Sahin T, Balaban O, Sahin L, Solak M, Toker K. A randomized controlled trial of preinsertion ultrasound guidance for spinal anaesthesia in pregnancy: outcomes among obese and lean parturients: ultrasound for spinal anesthesia in pregnancy. J Anesth. 2014 Jun;28(3):413-9. doi: 10.1007/s00540-013-1726-1. Epub 2013 Oct 20.
- Betran AP, Ye J, Moller AB, Zhang J, Gulmezoglu AM, Torloni MR. The Increasing Trend in Caesarean Section Rates: Global, Regional and National Estimates: 1990-2014. PLoS One. 2016 Feb 5;11(2):e0148343. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0148343. eCollection 2016.
- Ansari T, Yousef A, El Gamassy A, Fayez M. Ultrasound-guided spinal anaesthesia in obstetrics: is there an advantage over the landmark technique in patients with easily palpable spines? Int J Obstet Anesth. 2014 Aug;23(3):213-6. doi: 10.1016/j.ijoa.2014.03.001. Epub 2014 Mar 12.
- Khan MA, Gupta M, Sharma S, Kasaudhan S. A comparative study of ultrasound assisted versus landmark technique for combined spinal-epidural anaesthesia in patients undergoing lower limb orthopaedic surgery. Indian J Anaesth. 2022 Apr;66(4):272-277. doi: 10.4103/ija.ija_775_21. Epub 2022 Apr 20.
- Kurdi MS, Agrawal P, Thakkar P, Arora D, Barde SM, Eswaran K. Recent advancements in regional anaesthesia. Indian J Anaesth. 2023 Jan;67(1):63-70. doi: 10.4103/ija.ija_1021_22. Epub 2023 Jan 21.
- Wattanaruangkowit P, Lakchayapakorn K. The position of the lumbar vertebrae in relation to the intercrestal line. J Med Assoc Thai. 2010 Nov;93(11):1294-300.
- Srinivasan KK, Leo AM, Iohom G, Loughnane F, Lee PJ. Pre-procedure ultrasound-guided paramedian spinal anaesthesia at L5-S1: Is this better than landmark-guided midline approach? A randomised controlled trial. Indian J Anaesth. 2018 Jan;62(1):53-60. doi: 10.4103/ija.IJA_448_17.
- Gayathri B, Swetha Ramani CK, Urkavalan K, Pushparani A, Rajendran A. Comparison of the time taken for subarachnoid block using ultrasound-guided method versus landmark technique for cesarean section - A randomized controlled study. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol. 2021 Apr-Jun;37(2):205-209. doi: 10.4103/joacp.JOACP_35_20. Epub 2021 Jul 15.
- Forozeshfard M, Jahan E, Amirsadat J, Ghorbani R. Incidence and Factors Contributing to Low Back Pain in the Nonobstetrical Patients Operated Under Spinal Anesthesia: A Prospective 1-Year Follow-Up Study. J Perianesth Nurs. 2020 Feb;35(1):34-37. doi: 10.1016/j.jopan.2019.06.008. Epub 2019 Oct 18.
- Bhardwaj D, Thakur L, Sharma S, Rana S, Gupta B, Sharma C. Comparative evaluation of three techniques for paramedian subarachnoid block: Point-of-care preprocedural ultrasound assisted, real-time ultrasound guided and landmark based. Indian J Anaesth. 2022 Mar;66(Suppl 2):S102-S107. doi: 10.4103/ija.ija_373_21. Epub 2022 Mar 25.
- Bajwa SJ, Bajwa SK. Anaesthetic challenges and management during pregnancy: Strategies revisited. Anesth Essays Res. 2013 May-Aug;7(2):160-7. doi: 10.4103/0259-1162.118945.
- At A, So O. Failed spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section. J West Afr Coll Surg. 2011 Oct;1(4):1-17.
便利なリンク
研究記録日
主要日程の研究
研究開始 (実際)
一次修了 (実際)
研究の完了 (実際)
試験登録日
最初に提出
QC基準を満たした最初の提出物
最初の投稿 (実際)
学習記録の更新
投稿された最後の更新 (実際)
QC基準を満たした最後の更新が送信されました
最終確認日
詳しくは
本研究に関する用語
キーワード
その他の研究ID番号
- 5294
個々の参加者データ (IPD) の計画
個々の参加者データ (IPD) を共有する予定はありますか?
医薬品およびデバイス情報、研究文書
米国FDA規制医薬品の研究
米国FDA規制機器製品の研究
この情報は、Web サイト clinicaltrials.gov から変更なしで直接取得したものです。研究の詳細を変更、削除、または更新するリクエストがある場合は、register@clinicaltrials.gov。 までご連絡ください。 clinicaltrials.gov に変更が加えられるとすぐに、ウェブサイトでも自動的に更新されます。