Brazilian Journal of Anesthesiology
https://bjan-sba.org/article/doi/10.1016/j.bjane.2019.01.001
Brazilian Journal of Anesthesiology
Scientific Article

Single needle versus double needle celiac trunk neurolysis in abdominal malignancy pain management: a randomized controlled trial

Neurólise do tronco celíaco com o uso de agulha única versus agulha dupla no manejo da dor abdominal maligna: estudo randômico controlado

Nevert A. Abdelghaffar; Ghada F. El-Rahmawy; Alaa Elmaddawy; Adel El-Badrawy

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bjane.2019.01.001 Braz J Anesthesiol, vol.69, n3, p.284-290, 2019
PDF English
PDF Português
Downloads: 0
Views: 648

Abstract

Abstract Background: Computerized tomography-guided celiac plexus neurolysis has become almost a safe technique to alleviate abdominal malignancy pain. We compared the single needle technique with changing patients’ position and the double needle technique using posterior anterocrural approach. Methods: In Double Needles Celiac Neurolysis Group (n = 17), we used two needles posterior anterocrural technique injecting 12.5 mL phenol 10% on each side in prone position. In Single Needle Celiac Neurolysis Group (n = 17), we used single needle posterior anterocrural approach. 25 mL of phenol 10% was injected from left side while patients were in left lateral position then turned to right side. The monitoring parameters were failure block rate and duration of patient positioning, technique time, Visual Analog Scale, complications (hypotension, diarrhea, vomiting, hemorrhage, neurological damage and infection) and rescue analgesia. Results: The failure block rate and duration of patient positioning significantly increased in double needles celiac neurolysis vs. single needle celiac neurolysis (30.8% vs. 0%; 13.8 ± 1.2 vs. 8.9 ± 1; p = 0.046, p ≤ 0.001 respectively). Also, the technique time increased significantly in double needles celiac neurolysis than single needle celiac neurolysis (24.5 ± 5.1 vs. 15.4 ± 1.8; p ≤ 0.001). No significant differences existed as regards Visual Analog Scale: double needles celiac neurolysis = 2 (0-5), 2 (0-4), 3 (0-6), 3 (2-6) and single needle celiac neurolysis = 3 (0-5), 2 (0-5), 2 (0-4), 4 (2-6) after 1 day, 1 week, 1 and 3 months respectively. However, Visual Analog Scale in each group reduced significantly compared with basal values (p ≤ 0.001). There were no statistically significant differences as regards rescue analgesia and complications (p > 0.05). Conclusion: Single needle celiac neurolysis with changing patients’ position has less failure block rate, less procedure time, shorter duration of patient positioning than double needles celiac neurolysis in abdominal malignancy.

Keywords

Celiac neurolysis, Computerized tomography, Patient position, Single needle, Double needle

Resumo

Resumo Introdução: A neurólise do plexo celíaco guiada por tomografia computadorizada tornou-se uma técnica quase segura para aliviar a dor abdominal maligna. Comparamos a técnica de agulha única mudando o posicionamento do paciente e a técnica de agulha dupla usando a abordagem anterocrural posterior. Métodos: No grupo designado para neurólise celíaca com agulha dupla (n = 17), a técnica de abordagem anterocrural posterior foi utilizada com duas agulhas para injetar 12,5 mL de fenol a 10% de cada lado em decúbito ventral. No grupo designado para neurólise celíaca com agulha única (n = 17), a abordagem anterocrural posterior foi utilizada com uma única agulha para injetar 25 mL de fenol a 10% do lado esquerdo com o paciente em decúbito lateral esquerdo e posteriormente virado para o lado direito. Os parâmetros de monitorização foram a taxa de falha dos bloqueios e a duração do posicionamento dos pacientes, o tempo da técnica, os escores da escala visual analógica, as complicações (hipotensão, diarreia, vômitos, hemorragia, dano neurológico e infecção) e a analgesia de resgate. Resultados: A taxa de falha dos bloqueios e a duração do posicionamento dos pacientes aumentaram significativamente na neurólise celíaca com o uso de agulha dupla vs. agulha única (30,8% vs. 0%,13,8 ± 1,2 vs. 8,9 ± 1; p = 0,046, p ≤ 0,001, respectivamente). Além disso, o tempo da técnica foi significativamente maior na neurólise celíaca com agulha dupla que na neurólise celíaca com agulha única (24,5 ± 5,1 vs. 15,4 ± 1,8; p ≤ 0,001). Não houve diferença significativa em relação aos escores da escala visual analógica: neurólise celíaca com agulha dupla = 2 (0-5), 2 (0-4), 3 (0-6), 3 (2-6) e neurolise celíaca com agulha única = 3 (0-5), 2 (0-5), 2 (0-4), 4 (2-6) após um dia,uma semana, um e três meses, respectivamente. No entanto, os escores da escala visual analógica para cada grupo foram significativamente menores comparados aos valores basais (p ≤ 0,001). Não houve diferença estatisticamente significativa quanto à analgesia de resgate e complicações (p > 0,05). Conclusão: A neurólise celíaca com o uso de agulha única e a alteração do posicionamento do paciente apresenta uma taxa menor de falha do bloqueio, menos tempo de procedimento e menor duração do posicionamento do paciente que o uso de duas agulhas para neurólise celíaca em malignidade abdominal.

Palavras-chave

Neurólise celíaca, Tomografia computadorizada, Posição do paciente, Agulha única, Agulha dupla

References

Wong GY, Schroeder DR, Carns PE. Effect of neurolytic celiac plexus block on pain relief, quality of life, and survival in patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2004;291:1092-9.

Markman JD, Philip A. Interventional approaches to pain management. Anesthesiol Clin. 2007;25:883-98.

Soweid AM, Azar C. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided celiac plexus neurolysis. World J Gastrointest Endosc. 2010;2:228-31.

Moore JC, Adler DG. Celiac plexus neurolysis for pain relief in pancreatic cancer. J Supp Oncol. 2008;7:83-7.

Kambadakone A, Thabet A, Gervais DA. CT-guided celiac plexus neurolysis: a review of anatomy, indications, technique, and tips for successful treatment. Radiographics. 2011;31:1599-621.

Wang PJ, Shang MY, Qian Z. CT-guided percutaneous neurolytic celiac plexus block technique. Abdom Imaging. 2006;31:710-8.

Nitschke AM, Ray Jr. CE. Percutaneous neurolytic celiac plexus block. Semin Interv Radiol. 2013;30:318-21.

Titton RL, Lucey BC, Gervais DA. Celiac plexus block: a palliative tool underused by radiologists. Am J Roentgenol. 2002;179:633-6.

Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang A-G. G* Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods. 2007;39:175-91.

Edelstein MR, Gabriel RT, Elbich JD. Pain outcomes in patients undergoing CT-guided celiac plexus neurolysis for intractable abdominal visceral pain. Am J Hosp Palliat Med. 2017;34:111-4.

Krämer SC, Meier R, Seifarth H. Ganglien blockade. Radiologe. 2015;55:458-61.

Mercadante S, Nicosia F. Celiac plexus block: a reappraisal. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 1998;23:37-48.

Cornman-Homonoff J, Holzwanger DJ, Lee KS. Celiac plexus block and neurolysis in the management of chronic upper abdominal pain. Semin Interv Radiol. 2017;34:376-86.

Kurdziel JC, Dondelinger RF. Percutaneous lysis of neural structures. Interv Radiol Thieme New York. 1990:768-80.

Sarlieve P, Clair C, Saguet O. Alcoolisation coeliaque et splanchnique par voies postérieure et antérieure Intérêt de la voie transaortique. J Franç Radiol. 2002;83:1542.

Yousefshahi F, Tahmasebi M. Long-lasting orthostatic hypotension and constipation after celiac plexus block: a case report. Anesthesiol Pain Med. 2018;8:e63221.

Michaels AJ, Draganov PV. Endoscopic ultrasonography guided celiac plexus neurolysis and celiac plexus block in the management of pain due to pancreatic cancer and chronic pancreatitis. World J Gastroenterol. 2007;13:3575-80.

Ishiwatari H, Hayashi T, Yoshida M. Phenol-based endoscopic ultrasound-guided celiac plexus neurolysis for East Asian alcohol-intolerant upper gastrointestinal cancer patients: a pilot study. World J Gastroenterol. 2014;20:10512-7.

Jain P, Dutta A, Sood J. Coeliac plexus blockade neurolysis: an overview. Indian J Anaesth. 2006;50:169-77.

Lee JM. CT-guided celiac plexus block for intractable abdominal pain. J Korean Med Sci. 2000;15:173-8.

5dc568ef0e8825d160593253 rba Articles
Links & Downloads
2352-2291 (Electronic) 0104-0014 (Printed)
Braz J Anesthesiol ©2024 All rights reserved.

Braz J Anesthesiol

Share this page
Page Sections