Comparison of different volumes spread of erector spinae block in postmastectomy pain syndrome management: a prospective randomized comparative study.

BACKGROUND: Postmastectomy pain is chronic pain that occurs in females after breast surgeries. In this study, we estimated the vertebral levels reached by two different volumes (20 ml and 30 ml solutions) in the erector spinae block (ESB), as well as assess pain improvement and patient satisfaction in females with postmastectomy pain syndrome. METHODS: Fifty patients were assigned to two groups. The 20 ml group received ESB with 10 ml of bupivacaine 0.5%, 1 ml of 40 mg/ml of methylprednisolone, 2 ml of non-ionic contrast, and 7 ml of saline 0.9%. The 30 ml group received ESB with 15 ml of bupivacaine 0.5%, 1 ml of 40 mg/ml of methylprednisolone, 2 ml of non-ionic contrast, and 12 ml of saline 0.9%. RESULTS: The mean numbers of the blockade segments were 5.12 ± 0.726 and 6.36 ± 0.569 in the 20 ml and 30 ml groups, respectively (P < 0.001). The T1 to T6 blockade levels were achieved in six patients (24%) in the 20 ml group, versus 23 patients (92%) in the 30 ml group (P < 0.001). The numerical rating scale (NRS) improved in the 30 ml group during the follow-up period, compared to the 20 ml group. The T1 to T6 blockade levels showed better NRS (P < 0.001) and patient satisfaction (P = 0.011) than other blockade levels. CONCLUSIONS: The injection of a 30 ml solution of 0.25% bupivacaine with methylprednisolone in erector spinae block (ESB) may result in better analgesia and higher patient satisfaction in individuals with postmastectomy pain syndrome (PMPS) compared to a 20 ml solution. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05192278) on 14/1/2022.

Fluoroscopic anterior approach versus ultrasound guided superior hypogastric plexus neurolysis in cancer pelvic pain: a randomized controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Cancer-related pelvic pain can be difficult and debilitating to treat. Superior hypogastric plexus neurolysis (SHPN) is a good choice for adequate pain relief with fewer side effects. The current study compared between fluoroscopic anterior approach and ultrasound guided SHPN in the management of cancer-related pelvic pain. METHODS: Patients were randomly allocated into two equal groups. The ultrasound group (US group) (n = 48) received SHPN by an ultrasound-guided anterior approach using 3 ml 5% bupivacaine plus 20 ml 10% phenol, while the fluoroscopy group (n = 48) received SHPN by a fluoroscopy-guided anterior approach using 3 ml 5% bupivacaine plus 20 ml 10% phenol. RESULTS: The time of the procedure was shorter in the fluoroscopic group (21.31 ± 4.79 min) than the US group (24.88 ± 6.02 min) (P = 0.002). Patient satisfaction was higher in the fluoroscopy group (5.38 ± 1.482) than the US group (2.98 ± 1.495) (P˂0.001). The need for analgesia using morphine was significantly limited in each group, at 1, 2 and 3 months intervals (P1˂0.001, P2 ˂0.001 and P3 ˂0.001). There were statistically significant differences between both groups regarding fatigue at baseline, drowsiness at 3 months, nausea and vomiting at 1, 2 and 3 months and anorexia at 3 months. Group comparison also revealed statistically significant differences regarding depression at one month, anxiety at 2 and 3 months and insomnia at baseline. CONCLUSION: The fluoroscopic anterior approach SHPN was more superior than the US guided SHPN regarding the time of the procedure and patient satisfaction, while both technique were similar regarding the numeric rating scale and the complications during block. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered in the ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier: NCT05299047) at 28/03/2022.

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

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.

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.

[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.

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.