N/A N=80 Randomized Double-blind Treatment

Comparison of the Effect of Preoperative and Postoperative ESP and PVB on Postoperative Pain in VATS

Anesthesia · Nerve Block · Pain, Postoperative · Thoracic Surgery, Video Assisted

Bottom Line

View on ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT06488014 ↗

Enrolled (actual)

Serious AEs

0.0%

Results posted

May 2026

Primary outcome: Primary: Acute Postoperative Pain (With NRS ) — 3.5; 3; 4; 4 NRS score — p=0.365

Study Design & Population

Study type: Interventional
Phase: N/A
Interventions: Erector spina plan block (ESP) (Procedure); Paravertebral block (Procedure)
Age: Adult, Older Adult · 18+ yrs
Sex: All
Sponsor: Ankara University
Primary completion: May 2025

Outcome Measures

Outcome	Result	p-value
PRIMARY Acute Postoperative Pain (With NRS )	3.5; 3; 4; 4; 3.5; 4	0.365
SECONDARY Chronic Postoperative Pain	18; 18; 10; 9; 10; 9	0.912

Summary

The aim of this prospective controlled randomised clinical trial was to identify the analgesic method that is more effective than two different regional analgesia techniques routinely used for pain control after video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS). The effects of paravertebral block and erector spina plan (ESP) block on acute pain, need for additional analgesics and incidence of chronic pain after video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS) will be compared before surgical incision (pre-emptive) and at the end of surgery. The aim is to demonstrate that the ESP block, a relatively newer method in the literature, provides analgesia comparable to that of the paravertebral block.

Eligibility Criteria

Inclusion Criteria

>18 years
ASA I-II
Patients with a VATS (video-assisted thoracic surgery) plan

Exclusion Criteria

Under 18 years old
Patients under 40kg and BMI over 35
Allergic to the drugs to be used in the study
Patients with a history of chronic painkiller use
Patients who refused to participate in the study

View full record on ClinicalTrials.gov →

Data sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT06488014). Outcome figures and adverse-event rates are extracted automatically from the registry's posted results and are provided for clinician reference, not as a substitute for the primary publication.