Single needle versus double needle celiac trunk neurolysis in abdominal malignancy pain management: a randomized controlled trial
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2019 |
Outros Autores: | , , |
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 |