AzTrials
AzTrials

Labor PainNCT07669441

Early Labor Pre-Marking for Epidural Analgesia: Ultrasound vs Manual Palpation

A study testing Preprocedural Spinal Ultrasound and Conventional Landmark Palpation in people with Labor Pain and Epidural Analgesia for Labour and Delivery, run by University Medical Center Ho Chi Minh City (UMC) at 1 site in Vietnam.

Completed

Finished. The study has ended and is not enrolling. Results may be posted on the official record.

Official record
Search all trials

Trial summary

The goal of this clinical trial is to learn if finding and marking the best spot on the back early in labor helps doctors perform epidural pain relief more successfully in pregnant women. Usually, epidural pain relief is requested when labor pain is already severe, which makes it hard for women to hold still. Read more about this study

Who is it for?
Ages 18 years and older, women only
What is being tested?
Preprocedural Spinal Ultrasound and Conventional Landmark Palpation
Type of treatment
Surgery or procedure
Could I receive a placebo?
No, everyone receives an active treatment
How many people
100 participants
Where
1 siteVietnam
Study dates
1 Jun 2026to 14 Jul 2026
Phase
Interventional
Are there results?
None posted in the registry

Key requirements

Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.

  • Ages 18 years and older
  • Women only
  • No healthy volunteers
  • Adult, Older adult

Who may be able to join

  • Parturients aged 18 years and older, with gestational age at 37 weeks or older.
  • Actively requesting epidural analgesia for labor pain management without any contraindication to the procedure.

Who cannot join

  • Parturients with spinal abnormalities or a history of spinal surgery.
  • Inability to visualize epidural landmarks under ultrasound imaging.
  • Parturients experiencing severe pain requiring immediate, emergent labor analgesia.

Trial locations and contacts

1 site in 1 country.

Vietnam1 site
  • University Medical Center Ho Chi Minh City

    Ho Chi Minh City, Ho Chi Minh, 700000

Other trials in Vietnam

About this study

Official title: Early Preprocedural Ultrasound Versus Landmark Palpation for Site Identification in Labour Epidural Analgesia: A Randomised Controlled Trial

The goal of this clinical trial is to learn if finding and marking the best spot on the back early in labor helps doctors perform epidural pain relief more successfully in pregnant women. Usually, epidural pain relief is requested when labor pain is already severe, which makes it hard for women to hold still. This makes it difficult to find the right needle spot, leading to more needle attempts

The main questions this study aims to answer are:

Read more
  • Does using ultrasound to mark the back early in labor (before severe pain starts) help the doctor place the needle correctly on first try without adjusting it?
  • Does this early marking method lower the number of needle attempts and the time it takes to finish the procedure? Researchers will compare marking the back using an ultrasound machine to the standard method of feeling the spine with hands. Both methods will be done early in the waiting room to avoid the challenges caused by severe pain. Importantly, neither the pregnant women nor the doctors performing the epidural will know which marking method was used. This design prevents personal beliefs or expectations from affecting the procedure, making the study results objective and trustworthy.

Participants will, if consented and participated in the study:

  • Have their lower back examined and marked by a doctor early in labor using either an ultrasound machine or the doctor's hands.
  • Receive an epidural pain relief in the delivery room when they request it. This will be done by a different doctor who does not know how the back was marked.
  • Answer short questions about their pain level and how happy they are with the procedure.
Read the detailed description

Background: Epidural analgesia is a widely accepted and highly effective method for managing labor pain. Traditionally, anesthesiologists identify the epidural insertion site by manually palpating anatomical landmarks. However, this conventional approach can be challenging and imprecise for many parturients. Factors such as soft tissue edema, exaggerated lumbar curvature during pregnancy, and rising obesity rates can obscure bony landmarks. Furthermore, frequent and painful uterine contractions during active labor often hinder the patient from maintaining the ideal flexed posture required for the procedure. These clinical challenges can result in multiple needle insertions, frequent redirection, prolonged procedure times, and an increased risk of patient discomfort or procedural complications.

Preprocedural spinal ultrasound has emerged as a valuable tool to address these limitations. By visualizing the anatomy in advance, clinicians can accurately identify the appropriate intervertebral space, locate the mid line, determine the optimal needle insertion point and angle, and measure the precise distance from the skin to the epidural space. While prior research indicates that ultrasound guidance reduces technical difficulty, minimizes needle passes, and enhances first-attempt success rates, many of these studies lacked rigorous blinding or involved the same clinician performing both the ultrasound and the epidural placement, introducing potential observer bias. Additionally, in Vietnam, there is a lack of high-quality interventional research comparing ultrasound-assisted and traditional palpation techniques using standardized outcome measures.

Therefore, this randomized clinical trial aims to evaluate the efficacy of ultrasound-assisted marking versus conventional palpation for labor epidural analgesia. We hypothesize that preprocedural spinal ultrasound guidance significantly improves the first-pass success rate without requiring needle redirection when compared to the traditional technique. The results of this study aim to optimize clinical practice by promoting routine use of preprocedural ultrasound to enhance safety, efficacy and the overall childbirth experience. A key feature of this study is performing ultrasound assessment early in labor, prior to the onset of severe pain or a request for analgesia. This timing allows the parturient to remain comfortable, alert, and highly cooperative, ensuring precise marking. Once active labor necessitates epidural analgesia, the attending physician anesthesiologist can rely on the pre-marked site, streamlining the procedure and reducing patient wait times and distress Study Objectives: The objective of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of neuraxial ultrasound compared with the conventional anatomical landmark palpation technique for epidural analgesia during labor.

  • Primary Objective: To compare the success rate of the first needle pass without any needle redirection between the ultrasound-assisted group and the landmark-based group.
  • Secondary Objectives: To compare other procedural characteristics, including the overall success rate of the first skin puncture, the total number of skin punctures, the number of needle redirection, the total procedure time, and the incidence of procedural complications (e.g., paresthesia, vascular puncture, dural puncture).

Study Design and Methodology: This is a randomized, double-blind, controlled clinical trial conducted at the Obstetrics Department of the University Medical Center Ho Chi Minh City. Parturients are randomly assigned (in a 1:1 ratio using block randomization) to either the Ultrasound Group or the Landmark Group.

  1. Detailed Intervention Workflow: The study protocol is distinctly divided into two phases managed by different personnel to ensure strict blinding:

Phase 1 - Preprocedural Assessment and Marking (Labor Waiting Room): Parturients are positioned on the lateral decubitus position (knees flexed to the abdomen, neck flexed) to maximize the opening of the intervertebral spaces. The first investigator (an anesthesiologist experienced in neuraxial ultrasound) opens the sealed randomization envelope and performs the assessment:

  • For the Ultrasound Group: The investigator uses an ultrasound machine with a 2-5 MHz curved transducer. The L3-L4 intervertebral space is identified via the paramedian sagittal oblique view (counting upwards from the sacrum). The probe is then rotated 90 degrees to the transverse interspinous view to identify the exact midline and the optimal posterior complex. The optimal needle entry point is marked on the skin using a surgical marker, and the skin-to-epidural depth is measured via the ultrasound image.
  • For the Landmark Group: The investigator manually palpates the anatomical landmarks to identify the L3-L4 intervertebral space and marks the midline insertion site on the skin with a surgical marker. Subsequently, the investigator uses ultrasound strictly to measure the skin-to-epidural depth at this pre-marked site for data collection purposes only, without altering the physical mark.

Phase 2: Epidural Placement (Delivery Room) Once marked, the parturient is transferred to the delivery room for the epidural procedure.

  • A second anesthesiologist (the proceduralist), completely blinded to the group allocation, performs the epidural placement.
  • The proceduralist is required to insert the Tuohy needle exactly at the pre-marked site on the skin. To maximize patient safety, the proceduralist is informed of the ultrasound-measured skin-to-dura depth before initiating the puncture.
  • Procedural Rules: If the epidural space cannot be accessed, the proceduralist is allowed a maximum of 5 needle redirection (defined as changing the needle trajectory without completely withdrawing the needle tip from the skin). If the space is still not found after 5 redirection, the physician must completely withdraw the Tuohy needle from the skin, manually re-identify the anatomical landmarks, and perform a second skin puncture at a newly determined site.
  • Failure Criteria: The procedure is classified as a technical failure if the proceduralist cannot locate the epidural space after 3 complete skin punctures at different locations.

Data Collection: All procedural data, timings, and clinical outcomes are meticulously recorded by an independent anesthetic nurse present in the delivery room, who is also completely blinded to the randomization.

Being tested
Preprocedural Spinal Ultrasound, Conventional Landmark Palpation
Keywords
Epidural Analgesia, Labor Pain, Neuraxial Ultrasound, Preprocedural Spinal Ultrasound, Anatomical Landmark Palpation, Obstetric Anesthesia, Regional Anesthesia, First-pass success
Medical subject headings
Labor Pain

What participants receive

What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.

  • Preprocedural Spinal UltrasoundProcedure or surgery

    A curvilinear probe is applied to the lower back in a transverse orientation. The vertebral midline is marked after identifying a symmetrical image in the transverse spinous process view. The probe is then oriented to obtain a paramedian sagittal laminar view. After locating the sacrum and lumbosacral junction, the probe is moved cephalad to identify and mark the L3 and L4 laminae. The probe is rotated back to a transverse view to systematically assess the lumbar interlaminar spaces, using the posterior complex (ligamentum flavum, epidural space, and posterior dura) and the anterior complex (anterior dura, posterior longitudinal ligament, and posterior vertebral body) as key landmarks. Markings are done with pen at four midpoints of the probe's edges in the L3-L4 space with the largest acoustic window. The intersection of horizontal and vertical lines drawn from these marks designates the needle insertion point.

  • Conventional Landmark PalpationProcedure or surgery

    The anesthesiologist manually palpates anatomical landmarks to identify L3-L4 interspace and marks the midline insertion site. An ultrasound probe is then placed over this marked site only to measure skin-to-epidural depth for data collection purposes. These measurements are recorded but are not used to adjust or alter the marked insertion point.

Study groups in NCT07669441
Study groupRoleWhat they receive
Ultrasound groupExperimentalParticipants in this arm will undergo preprocedural spinal ultrasound while on the left lateral decubitus position. The ultrasound is used to identify the L3-L4 interspace, the midline, and the optimal needle insertion point.
Receives: Procedure: Preprocedural Spinal Ultrasound
Landmark GroupActive comparatorParticipants in this arm will undergo manual palpation of surface bony landmarks of L3-L4 interspace while on the left lateral decubitus position. This conventional approach determines the needle insertion point without relying on ultrasound guidance.
Receives: Procedure: Conventional Landmark Palpation

What is being measured

The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.

  1. First-pass success

    Yes/No variable. First-pass success is defined as the successful identification of the epidural space during the initial forward advancement of the needle, without any needle redirection or withdrawal

    Measured: Periprocedural

Secondary outcomes (11)
  1. First-attempt success

    Yes/No variable. First-attempt success is defined as the successful identification of the epidural space achieved with only a single skin puncture

    Measured: Periprocedural

  2. Number of needle redirections

    A needle redirection is defined as any partial withdrawal of the needle followed by a change in its advancement angle without the needle tip exiting the skin surface.

    Measured: Periprocedural

  3. Number of needle attempts

    A needle attempt is defined as a new skin puncture after the needle has been completely withdrawn.

    Measured: Periprocedural

  4. Procedure time

    Measured in seconds. Time from the moment the proceduralist inserts the Touhy needle at the marked position to final catheter fixation.

    Measured: Periprocedural

  5. Paresthesia

    Yes/No variable. Paresthesia is defined as any abnormal sensation (electric shock-like, tingling, or numbness) reported by the patient during needle insertion or catheter insertion.

    Measured: Periprocedural

  6. Vascular puncture

    Yes/No variable. Vascular puncture is defined as the presence of blood in the catheter or flashback in the needle.

    Measured: Periprocedural

  7. Dural puncture

    Yes/No variable. Presence of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) in the Tuohy needle or upon catheter aspiration

    Measured: Periprocedural

  8. Adequate analgesia

    Yes/No variable. VAS less than 3 at one hour post procedurally.

    Measured: 1 hour post-procedure

  9. Maternal satisfaction

    Patient satisfaction of the procedure is measured on a 0-10 Visual Analog Scale (VAS), where 0 represented 'completely dissatisfied' and 10 represented 'completely satisfied'.

    Measured: 2 hours postpartum

  10. Procedure failure

    Yes/No variable. Procedure failure is defined as inability to identify the epidural space after attempting at three different skin puncture sites

    Measured: Periprocedural

  11. Change of intervertebral space

    Yes/No variable. A change of intervertebral space is defined as the complete withdrawal of the needle from the initially selected spinal level and re-insertion at a different level.

    Measured: Periprocedural

Timeline

From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.

  1. First posted25 Jun 2026
  2. Study start1 Jun 2026
  3. Primary completion13 Jul 2026
  4. Study completion14 Jul 2026

Resources

More details

For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.

Study design
Study type
Interventional
Phase
Phase N/A
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Randomised
Intervention model
Parallel groups
Model description
Parallel Assignment
Masking
Triple blind
Who is masked
Participant, Investigator, Outcomes assessor
Enrolment
100 participants (actual)
IDs, dates and publications
ClinicalTrials.gov ID
NCT07669441
Sponsor's protocol ID
104/GCN-HDDD
Status last verified
Aug 2026
First submitted
21 Jun 2026
Last updated
1 Sep 2026
Results posted
No
Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
Individual data sharing
Yes: De-identified participant data are available on request to the corresponding author, subject to institutional approval.

Publications

  • Li M, Ni X, Xu Z, Shen F, Song Y, Li Q, Liu Z. Ultrasound-Assisted Technology Versus the Conventional Landmark Location Method in Spinal Anesthesia for Cesarean Delivery in Obese Parturients: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Anesth Analg. 2019 Jul;129(1):155-161. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000003795.

    PubMed 30234528
  • Tubinis MD, Lester SA, Schlitz CN, Morgan CJ, Sakawi Y, Powell MF. Utility of ultrasonography in identification of midline and epidural placement in severely obese parturients. Minerva Anestesiol. 2019 Oct;85(10):1089-1096. doi: 10.23736/S0375-9393.19.13617-6. Epub 2019 Jun 17.

    PubMed 31213044
  • Ni X, Li MZ, Zhou SQ, Xu ZD, Zhang YQ, Yu YB, Su J, Zhang LM, Liu ZQ. Accuro ultrasound-based system with computer-aided image interpretation compared to traditional palpation technique for neuraxial anesthesia placement in obese parturients undergoing cesarean delivery: a randomized controlled trial. J Anesth. 2021 Aug;35(4):475-482. doi: 10.1007/s00540-021-02922-y. Epub 2021 May 29.

    PubMed 34050798
  • de Carvalho CC, Porto Genuino W, Vieira Morais MC, de Paiva Oliveira H, Rodrigues AI, El-Boghdadly K. Efficacy and safety of ultrasound-guided versus landmark-guided neuraxial puncture: a systematic review, network meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomized clinical trials. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2025 Sep 4;50(9):737-746. doi: 10.1136/rapm-2024-105547.

    PubMed 38876801
  • Perna P, Gioia A, Ragazzi R, Volta CA, Innamorato M. Can pre-procedure neuroaxial ultrasound improve the identification of the potential epidural space when compared with anatomical landmarks? A prospective randomized study. Minerva Anestesiol. 2017 Jan;83(1):41-49. doi: 10.23736/S0375-9393.16.11399-9. Epub 2016 Oct 4.

    PubMed 27701372
  • Ekinci M, Alici HA, Ahiskalioglu A, Ince I, Aksoy M, Celik EC, Dostbil A, Celik M, Baysal PK, Golboyu BE, Yeksan AN. The use of ultrasound in planned cesarean delivery under spinal anesthesia for patients having nonprominent anatomic landmarks. J Clin Anesth. 2017 Feb;37:82-85. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinane.2016.10.014. Epub 2017 Jan 4.

    PubMed 28235536
  • Bae J, Kim Y, Yoo S, Kim JT, Park SK. Handheld ultrasound-assisted versus palpation-guided combined spinal-epidural for labor analgesia: a randomized controlled trial. Sci Rep. 2023 Dec 27;13(1):23009. doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-50407-7.

    PubMed 38155223
  • Grau T, Leipold RW, Conradi R, Martin E, Motsch J. Efficacy of ultrasound imaging in obstetric epidural anesthesia. J Clin Anesth. 2002 May;14(3):169-75. doi: 10.1016/s0952-8180(01)00378-6.

    PubMed 12031746
  • Arzola C, Mikhael R, Margarido C, Carvalho JC. Spinal ultrasound versus palpation for epidural catheter insertion in labour: A randomised controlled trial. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2015 Jul;32(7):499-505. doi: 10.1097/EJA.0000000000000119.

    PubMed 25036283
  • Grau T, Leipold RW, Conradi R, Martin E, Motsch J. Ultrasound imaging facilitates localization of the epidural space during combined spinal and epidural anesthesia. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2001 Jan-Feb;26(1):64-7. doi: 10.1053/rapm.2001.19633. No abstract available.

    PubMed 11172514
  • Chin A, Crooke B, Heywood L, Brijball R, Pelecanos AM, Abeypala W. A randomised controlled trial comparing needle movements during combined spinal-epidural anaesthesia with and without ultrasound assistance. Anaesthesia. 2018 Apr;73(4):466-473. doi: 10.1111/anae.14206. Epub 2018 Jan 10.

    PubMed 29322504
  • Tawfik MM, Atallah MM, Elkharboutly WS, Allakkany NS, Abdelkhalek M. Does Preprocedural Ultrasound Increase the First-Pass Success Rate of Epidural Catheterization Before Cesarean Delivery? A Randomized Controlled Trial. Anesth Analg. 2017 Mar;124(3):851-856. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000001325.

    PubMed 27183373
  • Young B, Onwochei D, Desai N. Conventional landmark palpation vs. preprocedural ultrasound for neuraxial analgesia and anaesthesia in obstetrics - a systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analyses. Anaesthesia. 2021 Jun;76(6):818-831. doi: 10.1111/anae.15255. Epub 2020 Sep 27.

    PubMed 32981051

Questions about this trial

What is this clinical trial studying?

A study testing Preprocedural Spinal Ultrasound and Conventional Landmark Palpation in people with Labor Pain and Epidural Analgesia for Labour and Delivery, run by University Medical Center Ho Chi Minh City (UMC) at 1 site in Vietnam.

The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.

Who may be eligible to take part?

The sponsor lists 2 inclusion and 3 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.

Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?

The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 1 Sep 2026. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.

Where is the study taking place?

The record lists 1 site in Vietnam. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.

What are the possible benefits and risks?

They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.

Are results available for this study?

The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.

How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?

The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.

What does the primary outcome measure?

First-pass success (time frame: Periprocedural). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.

Where can I read the original study information?

On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT07669441, which also lists 13 linked publications.

Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?

No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.

How often is this information updated?

AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 1 Sep 2026.

Free account

Log in to keep searching

You’ve used your 3 free searches. AzTrials is free: log in or create a free account to keep searching clinical trials and save the ones you want to follow.

Create a free accountLog in