Medical Information Only. Always consult your healthcare provider before enrolling in any clinical trial.

NCT02415465 · ClinicalTrials.gov registry record · NA

Continuous Adductor Canal Block (CACB) vs. Combined Spinal Epidural (CSE) in Total Knee Arthroplasty

A NA study of Arthroplasty, sponsored by Rush University Medical Center.

Completed
Registry status
NA
Development phase
157
Enrollment target
1
Study location

NCT02415465 is a NA study of Arthroplasty that has completed, run by Rush University Medical Center. The registered enrollment target is 157 participants, below the 210-participant average among 5 other Arthroplasty trials with a reported enrollment target (25% lower). The trial reports 1 study location across 1 state.

View on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

View your shortlist →

The verdict

NCT02415465, a NA study of Arthroplasty, has completed, sponsored by Rush University Medical Center.

COMPLETED
Registry status
NA
Development phase
157 participants
Enrollment target
1
Study location

Study Summary

Purpose: Compare continuous adductor canal block (CACB) to Combined Spinal Epidural (CSE) for total knee arthroplasty in terms of mobility, post-operative pain, and analgesic use. Hypothesis: CACB will provide better mobility than CSE post operatively.

Conditions Studied

Interventions

  • PROCEDURE Epidural
  • PROCEDURE Continuous Adductor Canal Block
  • PROCEDURE General
  • PROCEDURE Spinal

Study Locations (1)

Illinois

  • Rush University Medical Center - Chicago

Trial Details

FieldValue
Enrollment Target 157 participants
Start Date 2015-01
Est. Completion 2016-03
Phase NA

Sponsor

Rush University Medical Center

320 total trials

What the Registry Record Tells You About NCT02415465

The ClinicalTrials.gov registry entry for NCT02415465 describes a study currently listed as completed, categorized as NA. The registered enrollment target is 157 participants, a figure that helps gauge the scale of data the investigators plan to collect, below the 210-participant average among 5 other Arthroplasty trials with a reported enrollment target (25% lower). The listed sponsor is Rush University Medical Center, which has 320 total studies on file at ClinicalTrials.gov.

The record links to 1 condition, with Arthroplasty appearing as the primary indexed condition, and to 4 interventions - of which Epidural is the first listed.

NCT02415465 reports 1 study location spanning 1 distinct geographic area - top geographies include Illinois.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is clinical trial NCT02415465 about?

NCT02415465 is a clinical study titled "Continuous Adductor Canal Block (CACB) vs. Combined Spinal Epidural (CSE) in Total Knee Arthroplasty". Purpose: Compare continuous adductor canal block (CACB) to Combined Spinal Epidural (CSE) for total knee arthroplasty in terms of mobility, post-operative pain, and analgesic use. Hypothesis: CACB will provide better mobility than CSE post operatively.

What is the current status of trial NCT02415465?

This trial is currently completed. It is a NA study. The enrollment target is 157 participants. The study started on 2015-01. Estimated completion is 2016-03.

What conditions does trial NCT02415465 study?

This clinical trial studies the following conditions: Arthroplasty.

What interventions are being tested in trial NCT02415465?

The interventions under investigation include: Epidural (PROCEDURE), Continuous Adductor Canal Block (PROCEDURE), General (PROCEDURE), Spinal (PROCEDURE).

Who is sponsoring clinical trial NCT02415465?

This trial is sponsored by Rush University Medical Center, which has 320 total clinical trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov.

Where is trial NCT02415465 being conducted?

This trial has 1 study location across Illinois. Contact the study sites directly through ClinicalTrials.gov for enrollment availability.

Similar trials for Arthroplasty

Matched on the same primary condition, ranked to surface studies in the same phase first, then by recruiting status, no relevance scoring or editorial curation.

Data sourced from official public datasets. See our methodology for details. Retrieved and formatted by PlainTrial Editorial

Every figure on PlainTrial is rendered directly from the ClinicalTrials.gov registry, no number is typed in by an editor. This page mirrors this trial's own ClinicalTrials.gov registry record, live from the dataset. See our editorial standards & corrections policy, the methodology behind these numbers, or report a data error.