4.1 Article

CT-guided percutaneous neurolytic celiac plexus block technique

Journal

ABDOMINAL IMAGING
Volume 31, Issue 6, Pages 710-718

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00261-006-9153-5

Keywords

celiac plexus; blocking agent; CT-guidance; abdominal pain; cancer

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Up to now, the studies in the world have demonstrated that CT-guided percutaneous neurolytic celiac plexus block (PNCPB) is an invaluable therapeutic modality in the treatment of refractory abdominal pain caused by cancer. Its efficacy of pain relief varied in reported studies. The main technical considerations which would affect the analgesic effects on abdominal pain included the patients' cooperation, needle entry approaches, combined use of blocking approaches, localization of the target area, dosage of the blocker, and so on. A success of PNCPB depends greatly on close cooperation with patients. The patient should be educated about the purpose and steps of the procedure, and trained of breathing in and breathing hold. The needle entry can be divided into the posterior approach and the anterior approach. The former one is the most commonly used in clinical practice, but the latter one is rarely used except in the cases that the posterior approach becomes technically difficult. Bilateral multiple blocking of celiac plexus and splanchnic nerves is often required to achieve optimal analgesia. The needle entry site, insertion course, and depth should be preselected and simulated on CT monitor prior to the procedure in order to ensure an accurate and safe celiac plexus block. The magnitude of analgesic effect is closely related to the degree of degeneration and necrosis of the celiac plexus. Maximally filling with blocker in the retropancreatic space is an indication of sufficient blocking. We also provided an overview of indications and contraindications, preoperative preparations, complications and its treatment of PNCPB.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available