此页面是自动翻译的,不保证翻译的准确性。请参阅 英文版 对于源文本。

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

2026年8月4日 更新者: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.

研究概览

详细说明

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.

研究类型

介入性

注册 (估计的)

66

阶段

  • 不适用

联系人和位置

本节提供了进行研究的人员的详细联系信息,以及有关进行该研究的地点的信息。

学习联系方式

研究联系人备份

学习地点

    • Ontario
      • Toronto、Ontario、加拿大、M4N 3M5
        • Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre
        • 接触:
        • 首席研究员:
          • Howard Meng, MD

参与标准

研究人员寻找符合特定描述的人,称为资格标准。这些标准的一些例子是一个人的一般健康状况或先前的治疗。

资格标准

适合学习的年龄

  • 成人
  • 年长者

接受健康志愿者

不

描述

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

学习计划

本节提供研究计划的详细信息,包括研究的设计方式和研究的衡量标准。

研究是如何设计的?

设计细节

  • 主要用途:治疗
  • 分配:随机化
  • 介入模型:并行分配
  • 屏蔽:单身的

武器和干预

参与者组/臂
干预/治疗
有源比较器:Erector spinae plane catheter
Participants receive erector spinae plane catheter
Participants receive erector spinae plane catheter infusion
实验性的:Serratus plane catheter
Participants receive serratus anterior plane catheter
Participants receive serratus plane catheter infusion

研究衡量的是什么?

主要结果指标

结果测量
措施说明
大体时间
Pain with movement
大体时间: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

次要结果测量

结果测量
措施说明
大体时间
Total opioid consumption
大体时间: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
大体时间: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
大体时间:At time of catheter insertion
Number of skin puncture attempts
At time of catheter insertion
Pain at rest
大体时间: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
大体时间:72 hours
Procedural complications (vascular puncture, local anesthetic toxicity signs, pneumothorax, infection at insertion site).
72 hours
Duration of catheter insertion procedure
大体时间:At the time of catheter insertion
Time from patient positioning to final catheter insertion and confirmation (in minutes)
At the time of catheter insertion

其他结果措施

结果测量
措施说明
大体时间
Patient satisfaction
大体时间:72 hours
Patient satisfaction scores using Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC)
72 hours
Catheter-related complications
大体时间:72 hours
Catheter-related complications including infection, dislodgement, local anesthetic toxicity, and pneumothorax within the 72 hour study period
72 hours
Catheter function
大体时间: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
大体时间: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
大体时间:Through hospital admission, an average of 7 days
Duration of intensive care stay
Through hospital admission, an average of 7 days
Pulmonary complications
大体时间:Through hospital admission, an average of 7 days
Documented pneumonia, ARDS, need for mechanical ventilation
Through hospital admission, an average of 7 days

合作者和调查者

在这里您可以找到参与这项研究的人员和组织。

研究记录日期

这些日期跟踪向 ClinicalTrials.gov 提交研究记录和摘要结果的进度。研究记录和报告的结果由国家医学图书馆 (NLM) 审查,以确保它们在发布到公共网站之前符合特定的质量控制标准。

研究主要日期

学习开始 (估计的)

2026年8月1日

初级完成 (估计的)

2027年12月31日

研究完成 (估计的)

2028年6月30日

研究注册日期

首次提交

2026年7月3日

首先提交符合 QC 标准的

2026年8月4日

首次发布 (实际的)

2026年8月10日

研究记录更新

最后更新发布 (实际的)

2026年8月10日

上次提交的符合 QC 标准的更新

2026年8月4日

最后验证

2026年6月1日

更多信息

与本研究相关的术语

计划个人参与者数据 (IPD)

计划共享个人参与者数据 (IPD)?

不

药物和器械信息、研究文件

研究美国 FDA 监管的药品

不

研究美国 FDA 监管的设备产品

不

此信息直接从 clinicaltrials.gov 网站检索,没有任何更改。如果您有任何更改、删除或更新研究详细信息的请求,请联系 register@clinicaltrials.gov. clinicaltrials.gov 上实施更改,我们的网站上也会自动更新.

订阅