[Ganglion block. Celiac plexus neurolysis]

Sympathetic nerve blocks for persistent pain in adults with inoperable abdominopelvic cancer

BACKGROUND

Persistent visceral pain is an unpleasant sensation coming from one or more organs within the body. Visceral pain is a common symptom in those with advanced cancer. Interventional procedures, such as neurolytic sympathetic nerve blocks, have been suggested as additional treatments that may play a part in optimising pain management for individuals with this condition.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of neurolytic sympathetic nerve blocks for persistent visceral pain in adults with inoperable abdominopelvic cancer compared to standard care or placebo and comparing single blocks to combination blocks.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases without language restrictions on 19 October 2022 and ran a top-up search on 31 October 2023: CENTRAL; MEDLINE via Ovid; Embase via Ovid; LILACS. We searched trial registers without language restrictions on 2 November 2022: ClinicalTrials.gov; WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We searched grey literature, checked reference lists of reviews and retrieved articles for additional studies, and performed citation searches on key articles. We also contacted experts in the field for unpublished and ongoing trials. Our trial protocol was preregistered in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews on 21 October 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any sympathetic nerve block targeting sites commonly used to treat abdominal pelvic pain from inoperable malignancies in adults to standard care or placebo.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We independently selected trials based on predefined inclusion criteria, resolving any differences via adjudication with a third review author. We used a random-effects model as some heterogeneity was expected between the studies due to differences in the interventions being assessed and malignancy types included in the study population. We chose three primary outcomes and four secondary outcomes of interest. We sought consumer input to refine our review outcomes and assessed extracted data using Cochrane's risk of bias 2 tool (RoB 2). We assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE system.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 17 studies with 1025 participants in this review. Fifteen studies with a total of 951 participants contributed to the quantitative analysis. Single block versus standard care Primary outcomes No included studies reported our primary outcome, 'Proportion of participants reporting no worse than mild pain after treatment at 14 days'. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of sympathetic nerve blocks on reducing pain to no worse than mild pain at 14 days when compared to standard care due to insufficient data (very low-certainty evidence). Sympathetic nerve blocks may provide small to 'little to no' improvement in quality of life (QOL) scores at 14 days after treatment when compared to standard care, but the evidence is very uncertain (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.70 to 0.25; I² = 87%; 4 studies, 150 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the risk of serious adverse events as defined in our review as only one study contributed data to this outcome. Sympathetic nerve blocks may have an 'increased risk' to 'no additional risk' of harm compared with standard care (very low-certainty evidence). Secondary outcomes Sympathetic nerve blocks showed a small to 'little to no' effect on participant-reported pain scores at 14 days using a 0 to 10 visual analogue scale (VAS) for pain compared with standard care, but the evidence is very uncertain (mean difference (MD) -0.44, 95% CI -0.98 to 0.11; I² = 56%; 5 studies, 214 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There may be a 'moderate to large' to 'little to no' reduction in daily consumption of opioids postprocedure at 14 days with sympathetic nerve blocks compared with standard care, but the evidence is very uncertain (change in daily consumption of opioids at 14 days as oral milligrams morphine equivalent (MME): MD -41.63 mg, 95% CI -78.54 mg to -4.72 mg; I² = 90%; 4 studies, 130 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of sympathetic nerve blocks on participant satisfaction with procedure at 0 to 7 days and time to need for retreatment or treatment effect failure (or both) due to insufficient data. Combination block versus single block Primary outcomes There is no evidence about the effect of combination sympathetic nerve blocks compared with single sympathetic nerve blocks on the proportion of participants reporting no worse than mild pain after treatment at 14 days because no studies reported this outcome. There may be a small to 'little to no' effect on QOL score at 14 days after treatment, but the evidence is very uncertain (very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the risk of serious adverse events with combination sympathetic nerve blocks compared with single sympathetic nerve blocks due to limited reporting in the included studies (very low-certainty evidence). Secondary outcomes The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of combination sympathetic nerve blocks compared with single sympathetic nerve blocks on participant-reported pain score and change in daily consumption of opioids postprocedure, at 14 days. There may be a small to 'little to no' effect, but the evidence is very uncertain (very low-certainty evidence). There is no evidence about the effect on participant satisfaction with procedure at 0 to 7 days and time to need for retreatment or treatment effect failure (or both) due to these outcomes not being measured by the studies. Risk of bias The risk of bias was predominately high for most outcomes in most studies due to significant concerns regarding adequate blinding. Very few studies were deemed as low risk across all domains for any outcome.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is limited evidence to support or refute the use of sympathetic nerve blocks for persistent abdominopelvic pain due to inoperable malignancy. We are very uncertain about the effect of combination sympathetic nerve blocks compared with single sympathetic nerve blocks. The certainty of the evidence is very low and these findings should be interpreted with caution.

A Comprehensive study of the Abdominal Ganglia Part 3: An overview of the most commonly observed ganglion patterns, with particular emphasis on inferior mesenteric and gonadal ganglia

INTRODUCTION

Chronic pain from untreatable abdominal cancers or pancreatitis can severely decrease an individual's quality of life due to accompanying neuropathic pain, the most difficult pain mechanism to treat. Current treatment modalities focus on peripheral block or neurolysis procedures of the sympathetic ganglia in an attempt to curb the pain and improve quality of life. Reports indicated that these treatments are ineffective with patients either experiencing no relief or return the pain in a few weeks. The aim of this study was to investigate the location, macro- and microscopic morphology and interconnections of the abdominal ganglia.

METHODS

The abdominal sympathetic ganglia of nine adult cadavers were investigated. The locations, morphology, interconnections and microscopic structure was studied in 108 potential abdominal ganglia. Particular emphasis was placed on direct interconnectivity between the ganglia and histological morphology.

RESULTS

A total of 100 ganglia were confirmed histologically to contain ganglion cells. The number and locations of most of the ganglia identified in our study does not correspond to that described by previous reports. Numerous interconnections between the different ganglia, as well as direct communications with the lumbar sympathetic chain ganglia were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

The interconnections and presence of ganglion cells the nerves connecting the ganglia lead to the belief that the system should be considered as a unit and that pain fibers may be transmitted via alternative previously undiscovered pathways. If the pain treatments are to be reassessed with this information in mind, we believe that greater success could be achieved. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

A Comprehensive study of the Abdominal Ganglia Part 1: Celiac, phrenic and superior mesenteric ganglia

INTRODUCTION

Patients with pancreatic cancer, chronic pancreatitis and other abdominal pain syndromes may develop debilitating pain throughout the course of their illness with little to no relief by most conventional methods. While some form of relief is experienced by patients, not all benefit from these procedures and side effects, while transitory in most cases are severe and often not expected. Our aim was therefore to investigate the anatomy surrounding the abdominal sympathetic ganglia, the target for the invasive procedures in an attempt to understand the variations in results.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The abdominal cavities of nine individuals were dissected and the ganglia investigated, harvested and histologically and immunochemical stained.

RESULTS

The phrenic ganglion was found inconsistently and more often in the left than the right. If present it was located in association with the inferior phrenic artery and often connected to the celiac ganglion. The celiac ganglion was located anterior to the diaphragmatic crus on both sides and specifically posteromedial to the suprarenal gland and superior to the renal artery on the left. On the right it was located posterior to the suprarenal gland and inferior vena cava also superior to the renal vessels. The superior mesenteric ganglion was only positively identified in one individual and was located on the left lateral aspect of the superior mesenteric artery.

CONCLUSION

The blockade procedures for treatment of pain are developed to target the area around the celiac artery where the ganglion is commonly described to be located. However, based on our results of its location and interconnections the ganglion is not located in the targeted area.

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

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 analogue 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 analogue 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.

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

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion