Comparison of the Success Rate of Two Approaches for Obtu... | NCT01080599

Studies
Comparison of the Success Rate of Two Approaches for Obturator Nerve Block in TURB (Conventional Pubic Approach [Labat Technique] and Inguinal Approach)

NCT01080599

Sponsor

Yonsei University

Status

Completed

Last Update Posted

Mar 4, 2010Estimated

Enrollment

100Actual

Phase

Not Applicable

Conditions

Nerve Block

Interventions

obturator nerve block

Countries

Not provided

Protocol Section

Identification Module Status Module Sponsor/Collaborators Module Oversight Module Description Module Conditions Module Design Module Arms/Interventions Module Outcomes Module Eligibility Module Contacts/Locations Module References Module IPD Sharing Statement Module

Results Section

Participant Flow Module Baseline Characteristics Module Outcome Measures Module Adverse Events Module More Info Module

Annotation Section

Annotation Module

Document Section

Large Document Module

Derived Section

Miscellaneous Info Module Condition Browse Module Intervention Browse Module

Protocol Section

Identification Module

NCT ID

Results Section

No data available

No data is available for this block.

Annotation Section

No data available

No data is available for this block.

Document Section

No data available

No data is available for this block.

Derived Section

Miscellaneous Info Module

Version Holder

Status Module

Record Verification Date

Mar 2010

Overall Recruitment Status or Expanded Access Status

Completed

Last Known Status

Not provided

Delayed Posting

Not provided

Why Stopped

Not provided

Expanded Access Info

Start Date

Jun 2009

Primary Completion Date

Jan 2010Actual

Completion Date

Feb 2010Actual

First Submitted Date

Mar 2, 2010

First Submission Date that Met QC Criteria

Mar 3, 2010

First Posted Date

Mar 4, 2010Estimated

Results Waived

Not provided

Results First Submitted Date

Not provided

Results First Submitted that Met QC Criteria

Not provided

Results First Posted Date

Not provided

Certification/Extension (aka Delayed Results) First Submitted Date

Not provided

Certification/Extension First Submitted that Passed QC Review

Not provided

Certification/Extension First Posted Date

Not provided

Last Update Submitted Date

Mar 3, 2010

Last Update Posted Date

Mar 4, 2010Estimated

Description Module

Brief Summary

The purpose of this study is to compare the success rate of two approaches for obturator nerve block in TURB (conventional pubic approach [Labat technique] and inguinal approach.

Detailed Description

Not provided

Design Module

Study Type

Interventional

Number of References to an Expanded Access Study

Not provided

Expanded Access Types

Not provided

Patient Registry

Not provided

Target Follow-Up Duration

Not provided

Phases

Not Applicable

Interventional Study Design

Allocation

Biospecimen

No data available

No data is available for this block.

Enrollment

100Actual

Arms/Interventions Module

Arm Groups

Label	Type	Description	Intervention Names
conventional pubic approach	Experimental		Procedure: obturator nerve block
inguinal approach	Experimental		Procedure: obturator nerve block

Interventions

Name	Type	Description	Arm Group Labels	Other Names
obturator nerve block	Procedure		conventional pubic approach inguinal approach

Outcomes Module

Primary Outcomes

Measure	Description	Time Frame
Assessment of obturator sign during using nerve stimulator and operation

Secondary Outcomes

Not provided

Other Outcomes

Not provided

Eligibility Module

Eligibility Criteria

Inclusion Criteria:

Scheduled to undergoing transurethral resection of bladder tumor during combined spinal anesthesia and obturator nerve block were included in the clinical study

Exclusion Criteria:

Patients with advanced cardiac and respiratory insufficiency
Allergy to local anesthetics
Preexisting neurologic deficits
Prior operation involving the hip and the inguinal region and bleeding tendency were excluded.

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

Sex

All

Sex/Gender Based

Not provided

Sex/Gender Description

Not provided

Minimum Age

20 Years

Maximum Age

Not provided

Standard Ages

AdultOlder Adult

Study Population

Not provided

Sampling Method

Not provided