AIM: To investigate the effectiveness of phenol for the relief of cancer pain by endoscopic ultrasound-guided celiac plexus neurolysis (EUS-CPN). METHODS: Twenty-two patients referred to our hospital with cancer pain from August 2009 to July 2011 for EUS-CPN were enrolled in this study. Phenol was used for 6 patients with alcohol intolerance and ethanol was used for 16 patients without alcohol intolerance. The primary endpoint was the positive response rate (pain score decreased to ≤ 3) on postoperative day 7. Secondary endpoints included the time to onset of pain relief, duration of pain relief, and complication rates. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the positive response rate on day 7. The rates were 83% and 69% in the phenol and ethanol groups, respectively. Regarding the time to onset of pain relief, in the phenol group, the median pre-treatment pain score was 5, whereas the post-treatment scores decreased to 1.5, 1.5, and 1.5 at 2, 8, and 24 h, respectively (P < 0.05). In the ethanol group, the median pre-treatment pain score was 5.5, whereas the post-treatment scores significantly decreased to 2.5, 2.5, and 2.5 at 2, 8, and 24 h, respectively (P < 0.01). There was no significant difference in the duration of pain relief between the phenol and ethanol groups. No significant difference was found in the rate of complications between the 2 groups; however, burning pain and inebriation occurred only in the ethanol group. CONCLUSION: Phenol had similar pain-relieving effects to ethanol in EUS-CPN. Comparing the incidences of inebriation and burning pain, phenol may be superior to ethanol in EUS-CPN procedures.
AIM: To investigate the effectiveness of phenol for the relief of cancer pain by endoscopic ultrasound-guided celiac plexus neurolysis (EUS-CPN). METHODS: Twenty-two patients referred to our hospital with cancer pain from August 2009 to July 2011 for EUS-CPN were enrolled in this study. Phenol was used for 6 patients with alcohol intolerance and ethanol was used for 16 patients without alcohol intolerance. The primary endpoint was the positive response rate (pain score decreased to ≤ 3) on postoperative day 7. Secondary endpoints included the time to onset of pain relief, duration of pain relief, and complication rates. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the positive response rate on day 7. The rates were 83% and 69% in the phenol and ethanol groups, respectively. Regarding the time to onset of pain relief, in the phenol group, the median pre-treatment pain score was 5, whereas the post-treatment scores decreased to 1.5, 1.5, and 1.5 at 2, 8, and 24 h, respectively (P < 0.05). In the ethanol group, the median pre-treatment pain score was 5.5, whereas the post-treatment scores significantly decreased to 2.5, 2.5, and 2.5 at 2, 8, and 24 h, respectively (P < 0.01). There was no significant difference in the duration of pain relief between the phenol and ethanol groups. No significant difference was found in the rate of complications between the 2 groups; however, burning pain and inebriation occurred only in the ethanol group. CONCLUSION:Phenol had similar pain-relieving effects to ethanol in EUS-CPN. Comparing the incidences of inebriation and burning pain, phenol may be superior to ethanol in EUS-CPN procedures.
Authors: H W Goedde; D P Agarwal; S Harada; D Meier-Tackmann; D Ruofu; U Bienzle; A Kroeger; L Hussein Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 1983-07 Impact factor: 11.025
Authors: M De Cicco; M Matovic; R Bortolussi; F Coran; D Fantin; F Fabiani; M Caserta; C Santantonio; A Fracasso Journal: Anesthesiology Date: 2001-04 Impact factor: 7.892
Authors: S Doi; I Yasuda; H Kawakami; T Hayashi; H Hisai; A Irisawa; T Mukai; A Katanuma; K Kubota; T Ohnishi; S Ryozawa; K Hara; T Itoi; K Hanada; K Yamao Journal: Endoscopy Date: 2013-04-24 Impact factor: 10.093