Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31080008›Full record

Trial reportBrazilian journal of anesthesiology (Elsevier)

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

Nevert A Abdelghaffar, Ghada F El-Rahmawy, Alaa Elmaddawy, Adel El-Badrawy

Open access · diamondAbstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Brazilian journal of anesthesiology (Elsevier). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 31% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Phenol Neurolysis in Pain and Palliative Medicine.Pain practice : the official journal of World Institute of Pain · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Celiac plexus block combined withAbdominal radiology (New York) · 2023
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Nevert A AbdelghaffarMansoura University, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Anesthesiology, Mansoura, Egito. Electronic address: neverta@yahoo.com.
Ghada F El-RahmawyMansoura University, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Anesthesiology, Mansoura, Egito.
Alaa ElmaddawyMansoura University, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Anesthesiology, Mansoura, Egito.
Adel El-BadrawyMansoura University, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Radiology, Mansoura, Egito.
Mansoura University · EG

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundComputerized 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.

methodsIn 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.

resultsThe 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).

conclusionSingle 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.

Indexed as

Abdominal NeoplasmsAbdominal PainAgedCancer PainCeliac PlexusFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeedlesNerve BlockPhenolProspective StudiesTomography, X-Ray ComputedPhenolAgulha duplaAgulha únicaCeliac neurolysisComputerized tomographyDouble needleNeurólise celíacaPatient positionPosição do pacienteSingle needleTomografia computadorizada

Identifiers

PMID31080008
PMCPMC9391868
OpenAlexW2919749366

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.