CT引导下腹腔神经丛毁损术治疗慢性顽固性腹部癌痛

目的：观察CT引导下腹腔神经丛毁损性阻滞对顽固性腹部癌痛的镇痛效果及患者生活质量的影响。方法：74例顽固性腹部癌症疼痛患者，在CT引导监视下经背侧入路经皮穿刺腹腔神经丛无水乙醇阻滞治疗。结果：治疗后一周内全部患者疼痛减轻或消失。在治疗后第7、14、30、60天，患者的疼痛评分、疼痛缓解率、生活质量均明显改善，大多数患者临终前无痛或仅轻度疼痛。治疗过程中和治疗后未发生严重并发症。结论：CT引导下腹腔神经丛阻滞治疗顽固性腹部癌痛的疗效确切，安全性高．     

CT引导下腹腔神经丛毁损治疗顽固性腹部癌痛的护理

顽固性腹部癌痛是腹腔恶性肿瘤所致的剧烈腹痛,通常以中、上腹痛为主,有的患者应用大剂量麻醉性镇痛药物仍不能缓解,患者处于极度痛苦之中,生活质量极低.腹腔神经丛毁损作为一项神经毁损性介入治疗技术,可有效缓解腹部癌性内脏神经源性疼痛[1].我科自2006年以来,在CT引导下行腹腔神经丛毁损治疗74例顽固性腹部癌痛患者,不仅准确率高,而且安全、创伤小,患者痛苦也小[2].现将护理体会介绍如下.     

CT引导下腹腔神经丛毁损术治疗晚期胰腺癌痛的护理

报告10例胰腺癌晚期顽固性疼痛患者行腹腔神经丛毁损术的护理。认为护理的重点是有效的心理支持;术前俯卧位训练、便秘处理及其他各项准备;术后加强对低血压、腹泻、腰背部烧灼痛等并发症的观察与护理。本组疗效确切,疼痛缓解显效8例,中效2例,有效提高了晚期胰腺癌痛患者的生活质量。     

CT引导下经皮腹腔神经丛阻滞治疗晚期癌痛

目的：为了提高腹腔神经丛穿刺的成功率，减少穿刺中的并发症，扩大治疗范围，增强治疗效果。方法：应用CT引导下经皮腹腔神经丛穿刺，注入无水酒精，治疗上腹部癌痛。结果：CT引导下经腹腔神经丛穿刺20例，均一次穿刺成功，治疗后临床观察及随访，有效率95%，优良率85%。未发现一例血管、脏器损伤或其他并发症的发生。结论：CT引导下腹腔神经丛阻滞治疗上腹部癌痛，可清晰地分辨出腹腔神经丛及邻近血管、脏器的位置，观察肿瘤对周围淋巴的浸润情况，设计好进针途径、穿刺点、深度角度、避免穿刺时对血管、脏器的损伤，同时可以观察到针尖位置，准确地将药液注射到脚后间隙内，扩散到腹腔神经丛周围。     

CT介导下行毁损性腹腔神经丛阻滞的护理

CT引导下行腹腔神经丛或（和）内脏神经毁损性阻滞，治疗上腹部慢性、顽固性疼痛的效果确切。我院此前就其病例选取、阻滞实施、疗效评估、并发症防治等相关问题已有报道，唯相关护理等经验尚未见报道。本文就其施术的准备与配合、施术后护理问题做一总结，报告如下     

CT引导下腹腔神经丛阻滞术治疗顽固性癌痛的护理

本文通过对27例顽固性癌痛病人行腹腔神经丛阻滞术,术前加强心理护理,完善术前准备,术中注意病人与术者的配合,术后密切观察并发症的发生,使25例病人疼痛消失或明显缓解,取得了满意疗效。     

CT介导下行毁损性腹腔神经丛阻滞的护理

CT引导下行腹腔神经丛或(和)内脏神经毁损性阻滞,治疗上腹部慢性、顽固性疼痛的效果确切。我院此前就其病例选取、阻滞实施、疗效评估、并发症防治等相关问题已有报道[1-2],唯相关护理等经验尚未见报道。本文就其施术的准备与配合、施术后护理问题做一总结,报告如下。     

CT引导下腹腔神经丛阻滞术治疗顽固性癌痛的介入护理配合

腹部晚期恶性肿瘤常引起上腹部顽固疼痛,药物治疗难以达到有效控制,严重影响晚期肿瘤患者的生存质量。腹腔神经丛阻滞术（neurolytic celiacplexusblock,NCPB）被认为是治疗疼痛的有效方法。在CT引导下行腹腔神经丛阻滞术因具有定位准确、安全性高、并发症少的优点,已广泛应用于临床。现将59腹腔神经丛阻滞术护理报告如下。     

Celiac plexus block for pancreatic cancer pain: factors influencing pain, symptoms and quality of life

Neurolytic celiac plexus block (NCPB) is claimed to be an effective method of pain control for pancreatic cancer pain. However, the factors that may influence long-term analgesia, adverse effects, and quality of life after performing NCPB have never been determined. In a prospective multicenter study, 22 patients who underwent NCPB were followed until death. Numerous parameters other than pain and symptom intensity were evaluated, including age, gender, initial site of cancer, sites of pain, possible peritoneal involvement, technique, and oncologic interventions. Indices were calculated to determine the opioid consumption ratio (EAS) and the trend of opioid escalation (OEI). NCPB was effective in reducing opioid consumption and gastrointestinal adverse effects for at least 4 weeks. In the last four weeks prior to death, there was the typical trend of increasing symptom intensity common to the terminal cancer population. None of the factors studied influenced the analgesic effectiveness of NPCB. NPCB, performed by skilled clinicians, regardless of the technique chosen, is a safe and useful means that should be considered as an adjuvant to common analgesic regimens at any stage, as it may allow the reduction of the visceral component of pancreatic pain that may prevail in certain phases of the illness. The analgesic and symptomatic effect of NCPB is presumably advantageous for about four weeks. A possible factor interfering with long-term outcome includes the capacity of cancer to involve the celiac axis, which can distort the anatomy and prevent neurolytic spread, or modify the pain mechanisms. Outcomes are strongly based on individual variation.     

连续膈肌脚后间隙阻滞治疗顽固性上腹部癌痛疗效观察

目的:观察连续膈肌脚后间隙神经阻滞对顽固性上腹部癌性疼痛的疗效。方法:71例中晚期上腹部癌痛患者,随机分单次腹腔神经丛阻滞(NCPB)组(N组)、连续膈肌脚后间隙神经阻滞组(C组)和单独镇痛药物组(D组)。观察治疗前、后1周、1、2、4、6个月视觉模拟评分(VAS),吗啡用量和生存质量(QOL)及相关并发症情况。结果:3组治疗前后VAS评分均显著降低(P<0.01),1周至4个月,N组、C组低于D组(P<0.05),第6个月时,N组、D组差异不显著(P>0.05)。治疗后1—6个月疗效优良率D组低于N组、C组(P<0.05)。N组、C组治疗后吗啡用量低于D组,QOL均明显提高(P<0.01)。结论:神经阻滞联合镇痛药物优于单独药物治疗。连续膈肌脚后神经阻滞远期疗效及QOL改善优于单次NCPB治疗,可安全应用于临床治疗。     

CT引导下无水乙醇阻滞双侧腹腔神经丛治疗腹部癌性疼痛的价值

目的探讨CT引导下腹腔神经丛无水乙醇阻滞治疗腹部癌性疼痛的临床价值。方法对无法切除和无法有效止痛的12例晚期上腹部癌症患者，CT引导下应用无水乙醇10～15ml实施双侧腹腔神经丛阻滞，评价其止痛效果、不良反应及生存质量等。结果7例疼痛完全消失，3例仅口服或肌肉注射曲马朵即能止痛，有效率83．3％；6例无或轻微疼痛维持3个月，1例维持4．3个月。患者精神状态、饮食和睡眠均明显好转。结论CT引导下无水乙醇阻滞双侧腹腔神经丛可较有效地解除上腹部顽固性癌性疼痛。     

CT-guided percutaneous neurolytic celiac plexus block technique

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.     

不同剂量无水乙醇腹腔神经丛阻滞治疗上腹癌痛的疗效观察

目的 观察不同剂量无水乙醇腹腔神经丛阻滞术治疗晚期上腹部癌痛患者的疗效。方法 选取45例保守治疗无效的晚期上腹部癌痛患者,并随机分为15 ml无水乙醇组（A组）、20 ml无水乙醇组（B组）和25 ml无水乙醇组（C组）,每组15例,在CT引导下经前腹壁或背侧入路行经皮腹腔神经丛阻滞术,止痛效果分为0~Ⅲ级,分别于术后1个月、3个月时评价止痛效果。结果 随访观察3个月,1个月、3个月时20 ml和25 ml无水乙醇组有效率显著均高于15 ml无水乙醇组（P均<0.01）;而20 ml无水乙醇组与25 ml无水乙醇组有效率差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）,但25 ml无水乙醇组术后疼痛的患者数明显高于20 ml组。20 ml无水乙醇组术后1个月的有效率为93.33%（14/15）,3个月有效率为73.33%（11/15）,均未发生严重并发症。3组患者术后1个月与术后3个月疗效差异无统计学意义（P均>0.05）。结论 用20 ml无水乙醇腹腔神经丛阻滞治疗晚期上腹部癌痛是一种安全、有效的方法。     

CT引导下射频热凝毁损治疗顽固性舌咽神经痛的观察

目的：观察CT引导下颈外侧入路射频热凝毁损对于顽固性舌咽神经痛的治疗效果和并发症。方法：32例顽固性舌咽神经痛患者,在CT引导下行颈外侧入路经皮穿刺,行射频热凝舌咽神经毁损治疗。观察术前、术后1周及出院后随访时的疼痛情况、情绪评分以及并发症的发生情况。结果：26例患者术后疼痛消失,4例患者术后疼痛减轻。其余2例合并三叉神经痛患者术后行半月神经节射频毁损术,术后疼痛消失。随访期间28例疼痛消失无复发,2例在出院1个月内疼痛消失,1例仍部分缓解,1例喉癌继发性舌咽神经痛在术后2个月复发。所有患者视觉模拟评分（VAS）疼痛与情绪评分明显降低,无严重并发症发生。结论：CT引导下颈外侧入路舌咽神经射频热凝毁损术具有安全疗效可靠和定位准确的特点,可有效降低严重并发症的发生率。     

超声引导下腹腔神经丛毁损治疗上腹部癌痛的安全性和有效性

目的 评估超声引导下腹腔神经丛毁损（CPN）治疗上腹部癌痛的安全性和有效性。方法 对15例进展性上腹部癌痛患者行超声引导下CPN,利用视觉模拟量表（VAS）评分进行评估,记录CPN治疗前和治疗后即刻、1天、1周、1个月、3个月患者疼痛程度,并进行统计学分析。结果 2例因治疗前评估无安全穿刺路径而被剔除。成功实施超声引导下CPN治疗13例。治疗后13例患者VAS评分明显低于治疗前（P<0.05）。治疗过程中无严重并发症发生。3例发生穿刺部位疼痛,24 h后缓解;2例肠蠕动增快而出现腹泻;1例出现恶心、呕吐;1例术后出现低血压。结论 超声引导下CPN安全有效,可作为微创治疗上腹部癌痛的方法之一。     

CT引导下腹腔神经丛毁损术治疗胰腺癌疼痛的护理配合

本文结合32例CT引导下腹腔神经毁损治疗胰腺癌疼痛患者的护理经验,总结神经毁损治疗中的护理配合流程。32例患者在CT引导下行腹腔神经丛毁损术效果显著,治疗过程顺利,未出现并发症,治疗后患者平均疼痛视觉模拟评分(VAS)由治疗前的(9.54±2.38)分下降到(1.26±0.36)分,治疗后1周随访患者平均VAS评分为(3.35±0.72)分。护理配合主要包括治疗前协助麻醉医生评估,仪器设备、药品及物品的准备,治疗空间的合理布局和优化;治疗中协助体位的摆放,对患者的监测、阻滞效果的评估;治疗后对患者的宣教、心理护理以及并发症的观察等,良好的护理配合能够确保神经毁损治疗的安全性和高效性。     

Comparison of epidural butamben to celiac plexus neurolytic block for the treatment of the pain of pancreatic cancer

OBJECTIVE: To compare pain relief in metastatic pancreatic cancer patients between neurolytic celiac plexus block (NCPB) and epidural 5% butamben suspension (EBS), a material-based delivery system of a local anesthetic that produces a long-lasting differential nerve block. DESIGN: Open-label patient-selected parallel groups. SETTING: Urban tertiary care medical center. PATIENTS: Twenty-four adult patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer experiencing pain uncontrolled by systemic opioids who were referred to a multidisciplinary pain clinic for interventional therapy. INTERVENTIONS: Antecrural NCPB-block with ethanol and epidural 5% butamben suspension injections. MEASURES: Subjective global pain relief assessments on a 0-100% scale were made weekly for 4 weeks and then monthly. Change in opioid use postintervention. RESULTS: Eight patients had a single NCPB and three patients had two NCPB. Four of the former and two of the latter had successful pain relief defined to be a more than 75% reduction in pain when compared with pretreatment maintained for more than 4 weeks or until death (if less than 4 weeks). Thirteen patients received EBS in divided doses. Eleven patients received a cumulative EBS dose of 5 grams, one patient received a cumulative EBS dose of 2.5 grams, and one patient received a cumulative EBS dose of 8.75 grams. Nine of the eleven patients and each of the other two patients had successful pain relief. The overall incidence (85% EBS vs. 55% NCPB), the duration of successful pain relief, and the percent reduction in opioid use did not differ between the two groups. There were no serious complications. CONCLUSION: EBS appears to be a safe and effective alternative to NCPB in the treatment of pancreatic cancer pain.     

Has the analgesic efficacy of neurolytic celiac plexus block been demonstrated in pancreatic cancer pain?

Cancer of the pancreas is rising in incidence and will strike 27,000 Americans this year. There is no curative therapy for most patients, so palliation of symptoms should be the prime concern. Severe pain is very common, and often difficult to treat. Neurolytic celiac plexus block (NCPB) is claimed by some to be the most effective way to treat pancreatic cancer pain (PCP), yet only a minority of patients undergo this procedure. We have reviewed the literature on NCPB to determine if it has been adequately evaluated in the management of PCP. There have been 15 published series since 1964 on NCPB for PCP. A total of 480 patients with cancer of the pancreas were reported; at least a satisfactory response to NCPB was reported in 418 (87%). We found major deficiencies in these reports. None described the pre-NCPB analgesic history. Post-NCPB data were also limited. No information was given concerning post-NCPB analgesic dosages, and only 4 series stated that most patients did not require opiates. Information on whether NCPB was effective until death was lacking or incomplete in 12 series. Many claimed additional benefits of NCPB such as decreased nausea, decreased constipation, and increased appetite, but none provided any data to support these claims. We conclude that the data available on NCPB for PCP are insufficient to judge for efficacy, long-term morbidity, or cost effectiveness, and rigorous evaluation of the technique is required.