Skip to main content
OpenTrials
Not Yet Recruiting

NCT Number: NCT07688395

Erector Spinae Plane Block Versus Infraspinatus-Teres Minor Interfascial Plane Block for Analgesia After Shoulder Arthroscopy

The shoulder, being an anatomical region innervated by different nerves, has a wide variety of analgesic approaches, which differ depending on the practitioner. New approaches are being developed based on the different innervation channels demonstrated in clinical and cadaver studies. Over time, the effectiveness of axillary block, suprascapular block, interscalene block, local infiltration, and various combinations, as well as non-regional methods, has been observed. The goal of these approaches is to achieve the highest possible level of patient comfort, high analgesic efficacy, and minimal complications. Studies have shown that the interscalene block has the highest analgesic efficacy and the most ideal postoperative results; therefore, it is frequently used as the gold standard in this field. Providing effective analgesia with a single intervention can also be cited as an aspect that increases patient comfort and simplifies the procedure. In interscalene block; unilateral transient diaphragmatic paralysis due to the spread of local anesthetics to the C7 nerve root, respiratory problems and potential spinal/epidural complications, new approaches are being followed and researched. Results from cervical/high thoracic erector spinae plane block (ESPB) and infraspinatus-teres minor interfascial plane block (ITMIPB) studies, which are the subject of new studies, strengthen the hypothesis that they provide effective analgesia. Neither of these blocks, performed with ultrasonography, carries the risks present in interscalene block. Although the usual risks of a peripheral nerve block are present for these procedures; the block sites are considered safer due to its distance from vascular structures and the reduced risk of additional complications. While small sample studies exist for each type of block, no studies comparing their effectiveness have been found. Besides reduced complications, another advantage of these two blocks is their ability to provide effective analgesia with a single-point injection. The aim of this study is to compare the analgesic efficacy of Cervical Erector Spine Plane Block (ESP) and Infraspinatus-Teres Minor Interfascial Plane Block (ITMIPB) applied for postoperative analgesia in ASA I-III patients undergoing shoulder surgery.

Not Yet Recruiting

Trial opening soon.

Get Notified

Key information

Age range

18 year–80 year

Sex eligibility

All sexes

Study type

Interventional

Phase

Not applicable

Primary location

Taksim Educational and Research Hospital

Istanbul, Beyoğlu, 34433, Turkey (Türkiye)

Location contact

Canberk Çetinel, MD

CONTACT

[email protected]

+905396996239

Who can participate

Healthy volunteers accepted: No

Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.

Inclusion criteria

  • Adults scheduled for elective shoulder arthroscopy
  • ASA I-II-III patients
  • Patients age between 18-80

Exclusion criteria

  • Patients with previously known allergy to local anesthetics.
  • Patients with insufficient pulmonary functions (Severe obstruction or restriction in Pulmonary Function Test)
  • Patients with ASA IV or higher
  • Patients who suffered from any complications related to anesthesia or surgery
  • Patients with additional body part injury
  • Pregnant or breastfeeding women

Treatment and study plan

cervical erector spinae plane block

Procedure

Before shoulder surgery, Ultrasound-guided C8-T1 ESP block will be performed for postoperative analgesia

Infraspinatus Teres Minor Interfascial Plane Block

Procedure

Before surgery, Ultrasound-guided Infraspinatus Teres Minor Interfascial Plane Block will be performed for postoperative analgesia

Bupivacaine %0.25 (isobaric)

Drug

In the both groups, peripheral nerve blocks are performed by using Bupivacaine %0,25.

Primary outcomes

  1. Postoperative pain intensity

    Time frame: Postoperative 1., 6., 12. and 24. hour

    Pain intensity assessed using the 11-point Numeric Rating Scale (NRS; 0=no pain, 10=worst imaginable pain).

Secondary outcomes

  1. Total postoperative analgesic consumption

    Time frame: 24 hours after surgery

    Total amount of rescue analgesics (NSAIDs, paracetamol, and opioids) administered during the first 24 hours after surgery. Opioid consumption will be converted to intravenous morphine equivalents for analysis, when applicable.

  2. Incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV)

    Time frame: 24 hours after surgery

    Occurrence of postoperative nausea and/or vomiting requiring treatment during the first 24 hours after surgery. Also, the need for rescue antiemetic medication will be recorded.

  3. Block-related complications

    Time frame: 24 hours after surgery

    Incidence of block-related complications, including local anesthetic systemic toxicity, vascular puncture, hematoma, infection, pneumothorax, persistent sensory or motor deficits, and other procedure-related adverse events.

Study contacts

Contact information is provided by the study sponsor or research team.

Canberk Çetinel, MD

CONTACT

[email protected]

+905396996239

Sponsors and collaborators

Lead sponsor

Taksim Egitim ve Arastirma Hastanesi

Other Gov

Registry information

Official study title

Novel Analgesic Approaches in Shoulder Surgery: Erector Spinae Plane Block Versus Infraspinatus-Teres Minor Interfascial Plane Block

Important dates

Study start
2026
Primary completion
2027
Study completion
2027
First posted
Jul 7, 2026
Registry last updated
Jul 7, 2026

OpenTrials presents study information sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. The official registry record should be consulted for the latest information.

View the official ClinicalTrials.gov record (opens in a new tab)

This listing is for discovery and informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, does not guarantee that a study is recruiting, and does not determine eligibility. Contact the study team and a qualified healthcare professional when considering participation.

Published trials that share one or more normalized conditions with this study.