• Mao Li, Zihe Wang, Yang Chen, Zuowei Wu, Xing Huang, Chao Wu, and Bole Tian.
• Department of Pancreatology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan 610041, P.R. China.
• Medicine (Baltimore). 2021 Oct 15; 100 (41): e27103e27103.

BackgroundComparison between endosonographic ultrasonography (EUS)-guided celiac ganglia neurolysis (CGN) and EUS-guided celiac plexus neurolysis (CPN) in pain management for pancreatic cancer has engendered controversy. To analyze the effectiveness and safety of EUS-CGN and figure out whether EUS-CGN is better than EUS-CPN, a qualitative systematic review was conducted.MethodsStudies were searched from Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, and EMBASE up to April 2020. We only included studies with full-text and in English and assessed study quality with Newcastle-Ottawa Scale or Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. We recorded details of study design, participants, procedure performed, protocol of follow-up, pain response, quality of life, survival, and adverse events. The study was conducted under Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement 2009.ResultsFive studies involving 319 patients were included. Short-term pain response rates ranged from 65.0% to 88.46% in EUS-CGN group and most studies reported its superiority over EUS-CPN. As for adverse events, the incidence of transient hypotension and gastrointestinal symptoms seemed comparable, while results of initial pain exacerbation varied among studies. Besides, EUS-CGN might provide a shorter survival.ConclusionEUS-CGN can be safely performed while it may shorten survival. In terms of short-term pain response, EUS-CGN is better than EUS-CPN while no conclusion of long-term pain control can be drawn.Copyright © 2021 the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.

38 keywords...

hide…