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

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Abdelghaffar,Nevert A.
Data de Publicação: 2019
Outros Autores: El-Rahmawy,Ghada F., Elmaddawy,Alaa, El-Badrawy,Adel
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Revista Brasileira de Anestesiologia (Online)
Texto Completo: http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0034-70942019000300284
Resumo: 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.
id SBA-1_c98496a70cec8846dacf350c585ede4c
oai_identifier_str oai:scielo:S0034-70942019000300284
network_acronym_str SBA-1
network_name_str Revista Brasileira de Anestesiologia (Online)
repository_id_str
spelling Single needle versus double needle celiac trunk neurolysis in abdominal malignancy pain management: a randomized controlled trialCeliac neurolysisComputerized tomographyPatient positionSingle needleDouble needleAbstract 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.Sociedade Brasileira de Anestesiologia2019-06-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiontext/htmlhttp://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0034-70942019000300284Revista Brasileira de Anestesiologia v.69 n.3 2019reponame:Revista Brasileira de Anestesiologia (Online)instname:Sociedade Brasileira de Anestesiologia (SBA)instacron:SBA10.1016/j.bjane.2019.01.001info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessAbdelghaffar,Nevert A.El-Rahmawy,Ghada F.Elmaddawy,AlaaEl-Badrawy,Adeleng2019-08-06T00:00:00Zoai:scielo:S0034-70942019000300284Revistahttps://www.sbahq.org/revista/https://old.scielo.br/oai/scielo-oai.php||sba2000@openlink.com.br1806-907X0034-7094opendoar:2019-08-06T00:00Revista Brasileira de Anestesiologia (Online) - Sociedade Brasileira de Anestesiologia (SBA)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Single needle versus double needle celiac trunk neurolysis in abdominal malignancy pain management: a randomized controlled trial
title Single needle versus double needle celiac trunk neurolysis in abdominal malignancy pain management: a randomized controlled trial
spellingShingle Single needle versus double needle celiac trunk neurolysis in abdominal malignancy pain management: a randomized controlled trial
Abdelghaffar,Nevert A.
Celiac neurolysis
Computerized tomography
Patient position
Single needle
Double needle
title_short Single needle versus double needle celiac trunk neurolysis in abdominal malignancy pain management: a randomized controlled trial
title_full Single needle versus double needle celiac trunk neurolysis in abdominal malignancy pain management: a randomized controlled trial
title_fullStr Single needle versus double needle celiac trunk neurolysis in abdominal malignancy pain management: a randomized controlled trial
title_full_unstemmed Single needle versus double needle celiac trunk neurolysis in abdominal malignancy pain management: a randomized controlled trial
title_sort Single needle versus double needle celiac trunk neurolysis in abdominal malignancy pain management: a randomized controlled trial
author Abdelghaffar,Nevert A.
author_facet Abdelghaffar,Nevert A.
El-Rahmawy,Ghada F.
Elmaddawy,Alaa
El-Badrawy,Adel
author_role author
author2 El-Rahmawy,Ghada F.
Elmaddawy,Alaa
El-Badrawy,Adel
author2_role author
author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Abdelghaffar,Nevert A.
El-Rahmawy,Ghada F.
Elmaddawy,Alaa
El-Badrawy,Adel
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Celiac neurolysis
Computerized tomography
Patient position
Single needle
Double needle
topic Celiac neurolysis
Computerized tomography
Patient position
Single needle
Double needle
description 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.
publishDate 2019
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2019-06-01
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0034-70942019000300284
url http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0034-70942019000300284
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv 10.1016/j.bjane.2019.01.001
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv text/html
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Sociedade Brasileira de Anestesiologia
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Sociedade Brasileira de Anestesiologia
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Revista Brasileira de Anestesiologia v.69 n.3 2019
reponame:Revista Brasileira de Anestesiologia (Online)
instname:Sociedade Brasileira de Anestesiologia (SBA)
instacron:SBA
instname_str Sociedade Brasileira de Anestesiologia (SBA)
instacron_str SBA
institution SBA
reponame_str Revista Brasileira de Anestesiologia (Online)
collection Revista Brasileira de Anestesiologia (Online)
repository.name.fl_str_mv Revista Brasileira de Anestesiologia (Online) - Sociedade Brasileira de Anestesiologia (SBA)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv ||sba2000@openlink.com.br
_version_ 1752126630451478528