Bilateral vs. unilateral endoscopic ultrasound-guided celiac plexus neurolysis for abdominal pain management in patients with pancreatic malignancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis
- 320 Downloads
Endoscopic ultrasound-guided celiac plexus neurolysis (EUS-CPN) by bilateral or unilateral approach is widely used in palliative abdominal pain management in pancreatic cancer patients, but the analgesic effect and relative risks of the two different puncture routes remain controversial.
The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the analgesic efficacy and safety of bilateral EUS-CPN compared with unilateral EUS-CPN.
An electronic database search was performed for randomized controlled trials comparing bilateral and unilateral approaches of EUS-CPN using the Pubmed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and CNKI databases. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3 after screening and methodological evaluation of the selected studies. Outcomes included pain relief, treatment response, analgesic reduction, complications, and quality of life (QOL).
Six eligible studies involving 437 patients were included. No significant difference was found in short-term pain relief [SMD = 0.31, 95% CI (− 0.20, 0.81), P = 0.23] and response to treatment [RR = 0.99, 95% CI (0.77, 1.41), P = 0.97] between the bilateral and unilateral neurolysis groups. However, only the bilateral approach was associated with a statistically significant reduction in the postoperative use of analgesics [RR = 0.66, 95% CI (0.47, 0.94), P = 0.02] compared to the unilateral approach. A descriptive analysis was performed for complications and QOL.
The short-term analgesic effect and general risk of bilateral EUS-CPN are comparable with those of unilateral EUS-CPN, but our evidence supports the conclusion that the bilateral approach significantly reduces postoperative analgesic use.
KeywordsEndoscopic ultrasound Celiac plexus Neurolysis Bilateral Unilateral Meta-analysis
The authors thank Dr. Jie Tian and Dr. Bixin Zheng for editorial assistance while preparing this manuscript.
This review was supported by funding (fund number: 81500956) from the National Nature Science Foundation of China.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
- 2.American Cancer Society (2016) Cancer facts and figures. Available from http://www.cancer.org/research/cancerfactsstatistics/cancerfactsfigures2016/index. Accessed November 21, 2016
- 10.Kappis M (1914) Erfahrungen mit Lokalansthesie bei Bauchoperationen. Verh Dsch Ges Cire 43:87–89Google Scholar
- 14.Higgins JPT, Green S (eds) (2011) The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias. Part 2: general methods for Cochrane reviews. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. The Cochrane Collaboration. Available from http://handbook.cochrane.org
- 15.Higgins JPT, Green S (eds) (2011) Extracting study results and converting to the desired format. Part 2: general methods for Cochrane reviews. The Cochrane Collaboration. Available from http://handbook.cochrane.org
- 16.Bhatnagar S, Joshi S, Rana SP et al (2014) Bedside ultrasound-guided celiac plexus neurolysis in upper abdominal cancer patients: a randomized, prospective study for comparison of percutaneous bilateral paramedian vs. unilateral paramedian needle-insertion technique. Pain Pract 14:E63–E68CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 24.NCCN (2016) clinical practice guideline in oncology for pancreatic adenocarcinoma version 2. Available from https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/pancreatic.pdf. Accessed October 25, 2016
- 28.Wyse JM, Carone M, Paquin SC, Usatii M, Sahai AV (2011) Randomized, double-blind, controlled trial of early endoscopic ultrasound-guided celiac plexus neurolysis to prevent pain progression in patients with newly diagnosed, painful, inoperable pancreatic cancer. J Clin Oncol 29:3541–3546CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar