We'd like your feedback
Your feedback is important to us. It will help us improve the quality of the study information on this site. Please answer both questions.
Contact the study team using the details below to take part. If there are no contact details below please ask your doctor in the first instance.
Use of rectus sheath catheters (RSCs) in patients undergoing emergency bowel surgery.
This information is provided directly by researchers, and we recognise that it isn't always easy to understand. We are working with researchers to improve the accessibility of this information. In some summaries, you may come across links to external websites. These websites will have more information to help you better understand the study.
In the UK around 30,000 patients, a year undergo an operation called an emergency laparotomy to treat life-threatening conditions. A large vertical cut is made in the abdomen when patients are asleep under general anesthesia. Good pain relief after surgery will help patients feel better and recover quicker. Because of the high level of pain experienced by many patients, opioid-based painkillers such as morphine are often given, using patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) pumps. However, morphine can cause serious side effects such as breathing problems, nausea and vomiting, and delayed bowel movement, which can slow patient recovery. Rectus sheath catheters (RSCs) are a newer way of providing pain relief, where two thin tubes (catheters) are inserted on either side of the wound during the operation. Local anesthetic is injected slowly into the catheters to numb the nerves and reduce pain for about three days. Small studies suggest that RSCs may provide effective pain relief, reduce the use of morphine, and help patient recovery. Potential disadvantages are that RSCs take time to insert and are expensive. More work is needed to understand whether there are any unwanted effects with RSCs.
This study will find out whether adding a RSCs to standard patient-controlled analgesia provides better pain relief, fewer side effects and complications, and greater satisfaction for patients undergoing emergency laparotomy compared to a control group who will receive a sham catheter with no infusion of analgesia. Our study will also aim to determine whether RSCs are safe and cost-effective.
Start dates may differ between countries and research sites. The research team are responsible for keeping the information up-to-date.
The recruitment start and end dates are as follows:
You can take part if:
You may not be able to take part if:
Current participant exclusion criteria:1. Planned epidural anaesthesia 2. Clinician refusal3. Lack of mental capacity to consent to trial participation4. Contraindications to RSC including allergy to local anaesthetic (LA), anatomical factors making RSC insertion impossible5. Existing co-enrolment in another clinical study if:5.1. The intervention in the other study is expected to influence the primary outcome (this will be considered by a senior clinician on a case-by-case basis)5.2. It is considered too burdensome for the patient; or5.3. It is not permitted by the other study6. Previous enrolment in the CAMELOT trial
Previous participant exclusion criteria:1. Clinician or patient refusal to participate2. Planned epidural anaesthesia3. Contraindications to Rectus Sheath Catheter (RSC) including allergy to local anaesthetic (LA)4. Anatomical factors making RSC insertion impossible
Below are the locations for where you can take part in the trial. Please note that not all sites may be open.
Mr
Jonathan
Evans
+44 (0)117 455 1591
camelot-trial@bristol.ac.uk
The study is sponsored by University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust and funded by National Institute for Health and Care Research; Health Technology Assessment Programme.
Your feedback is important to us. It will help us improve the quality of the study information on this site. Please answer both questions.
Or CPMS 53589
You can print or share the study information with your GP/healthcare provider or contact the research team directly.
