Spinal Versus General Anesthesia With Popliteal and Adductor Canal Blocks for Ambulatory Foot and Ankle Surgery.
Public ClinicalTrials.gov record NCT02996591. Field values are reproduced from the official study page; the official ClinicalTrials.gov record remains the source of truth for eligibility, enrollment, and contact information.
Data is sourced from official ClinicalTrials.gov public API records. Always review the official ClinicalTrials.gov record for the latest information.
Official title
Spinal Versus General Anesthesia With Popliteal and Adductor Canal Blocks for Ambulatory Foot and Ankle Surgery: A Double-Blinded Randomized Controlled Trial.
Brief summary
Reproduced verbatim from the official ClinicalTrials.gov record. Not medical advice.
The purpose of this study is to determine if there is a difference in patient outcomes with general anesthesia versus spinal anesthesia when given in addition to popliteal and adductor canal nerve blocks for foot and ankle surgery. Popliteal and adductor canal nerve blocks are injections of local anesthetic agents near nerves in the back and front of the knee going to the foot and ankle that provide numbness during and after surgery. These peripheral nerve blocks offer good pain control and reduce the need for opioids (opioids are pain medications such as morphine, Dilaudid, and oxycodone). General anesthesia involves the flow of oxygen and anesthesia gas through a tube which, along with additional intravenous medications, causes unconsciousness and unawareness of sensations during surgery. Spinal anesthesia involves an injection of local anesthetic in the lower back, which causes numbness below the waist. In addition to spinal anesthesia, a sedative is typically given intravenously to cause relaxation and sleepiness throughout surgery. General, spinal, and nerve block anesthesia are all routinely used for surgery at the Hospital for Special Surgery. General or spinal anesthesia is typically used in addition to peripheral nerve blocks during foot and ankle surgery to 1) allow the surgeons to use a thigh tourniquet to reduce bleeding, 2) provide anesthesia earlier, and 3) prevent unwanted movement. However, it is unclear whether general or spinal anesthesia provides better patient outcomes when given with peripheral nerve blocks. Some reports show that on its own, spinal anesthesia has advantages over general anesthesia in terms of side effects such as nausea and pain. However, these advantages may also be gained from combining peripheral nerve blocks with general anesthesia. Spinal anesthesia can be associated with headache and backache, although headache and backache can also happen after operations performed with general anesthesia. A previous study at the Hospital for Special Surgery showed low rates of nausea among patients who received nerve blocks with spinal anesthesia, and no nausea among patients who received a nerve block with general anesthesia. Therefore, the primary aim of this study is to determine if, as a treatment, either general or spinal anesthesia has advantages over the other treatment in terms of readiness for discharge, side effects, pain and patient satisfaction in an ambulatory foot and ankle population.
Study identification
- NCT ID
- NCT02996591
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase 4
- Enrollment
- 36 participants
Conditions and interventions
Interventions
- 25 mL of 0.25% bupivacaine plus 2 mg preservative-free (PF) dexamethasone / 30 ml for popliteal nerve block Procedure
- 10 mL of 0.25% bupivacaine plus 2 mg preservative-free (PF) dexamethasone / 30 ml for adductor canal nerve block Procedure
- Midazolam, 2-5 mg IV + Glycopyrrolate, 0.1 mg IV + Ketamine, 10-20 mg + propofol as needed Drug
- 45-60 mg of 1.5% mepivacaine for spinal anesthesia Procedure
- LMA insertion + titrated propofol infusion + sevoflurane + ketamine 10 mg/hr for general anesthesia Procedure
Procedure · Drug
Eligibility (public fields only)
- Age range
- 18 Years to 75 Years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Healthy volunteers not accepted
This page does not interpret eligibility. Detailed inclusion and exclusion criteria are on the official ClinicalTrials.gov record.
Study timeline
- Start date
- Dec 31, 2016
- Primary completion
- Apr 30, 2017
- Completion
- Apr 30, 2017
- Last update posted
- Nov 11, 2019
2017
United States locations
- U.S. sites
- 1
- U.S. states
- 1
- U.S. cities
- 1
| Facility | City | State | ZIP | Site status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hospital for Special Surgery, New York | New York | New York | 10021 | — |
Site contact phone numbers, emails, and investigator names are intentionally not displayed here. Open the official ClinicalTrials.gov record for site contact information.
About this trial record page
- What this page shows
- Public field values for ClinicalTrials.gov record NCT02996591, including study identification, conditions, interventions, eligibility (age, sex, healthy volunteer), timeline, and U.S. site list.
- What this page does not do
- No medical advice, eligibility judgments, treatment recommendations, study quality scoring, or AI-generated medical summaries. No site contact phone numbers, emails, or investigator names.
- Where the data comes from
- Sourced from the official ClinicalTrials.gov public API. The official record is the source of truth.
- Last refresh
- Last update posted Nov 11, 2019 · Synced Sep 7, 2026
Related: full search, browse by condition, browse by drug or therapy, browse by sponsor, browse by U.S. city.
Open the official record
The complete protocol, eligibility criteria, and contact information for NCT02996591 live on ClinicalTrials.gov.