Abstract
Background: The neurolytic celiac plexus block (NCPB) has been a valuable intervention for managing upper abdominal cancer pain. However, the optimal approach for performing a NCPB remains a topic of debate. We conducted this study to establish the efficacy of unilateral vs bilateral percutaneous posterior approach NCPB. Methodology: This prospective, interventional study includes a cohort of individuals through chronic abdominal pain related to malignancies who were scheduled to undergo NCPB. Patients were divided into two groups, one group received the unilateral percutaneous posterior approach NCPB, and the other group received the bilateral NCPB by percutaneous posterior. Pain scores and adverse events at multiple time points post-procedure were recorded. Statistical analysis was conducted to compare pain score and adverse events between the two groups and evaluate the impact of the chosen approach on pain management. Results: Bilateral percutaneous posterior approach provides slightly better pain relief compared to the unilateral approach in the early post-procedure period which is not statistically significant. Complication rates appear to be comparable between the two approaches, with no major safety concerns identified. Conclusion: While the bilateral approach initially offers more effective pain relief, the long-term benefits and safety profiles of both methods are comparable. Clinical decision-making should consider these findings and prioritize individualized patient care. Abbreviations: CPB - Celiac Plexus Block; NCPB - neurolytic celiac plexus block; PACU - post-anesthesia care unit; VAS - visual analogue scale Keywords: Neurolytic celiac plexus block, Pancreatic cancer pain, upper abdominal malignancy Citation: Abbas MQ, Abbas SM, Farooq MF, Siddique M, Malik S. An interventional prospective cohort study of efficacy of unilateral vs bilateral percutaneous posterior approach neurolytic celiac plexus blocks. Anaesth. pain intensive care 2024;28(5): 798−803; DOI: 10.35975/apic.v28i5.2559 Received: March 24, 2024; Reviewed: August 05, 2024; Accepted: August 08, 2024
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
