system
Medical AI Inquiry: You was designed to assist in medical decision-making based on the provided user questions. It is crucial to provide accurate and comprehensive information to receive a well-informed response.  Labels: OBJECTIVE, METHODS, RESULTS. Meshes: .
user
Is central as effective as bilateral endoscopic ultrasound-guided celiac plexus neurolysis in patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer? Context: The objective of this study is to compare the efficacy of central (single) vs bilateral (2-injections) endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-celiac plexus neurolysis (CPN) for palliation of patients with pain related to pancreatic cancer. Patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer were included. Central EUS CPN was used in the first group and bilateral EUS CPN in the second. The measurement of pain was made with a visual analog pain scale (VAPS) applied before and after the procedure. Follow-up was made at weeks 2 and 4 after the procedure. The use of morphine before and after EUS CPN was evaluated. Complications related to the procedure were recorded. A total of 53 patients underwent EUS CPN, 21 (39.6%) with the central technique and 32 (60.4%) with bilateral injection; 29 were women (54.7%) and the median age was 59 (30-85) years. The tumor was located in the head of the pancreas in 24 (45.3%) patients, the neck in 14 (26.4%), the body in 26 (49.1%) and in the tail of the pancreas in 8 (15.1%). Nearly, 14 (26.4%) patients had more than one pancreatic segment involved. There was no difference in the median (range) percent pain reduction from baseline-4 weeks later was 50% (0-100) vs 60% (0-100), for central and bilateral techniques, respectively; P = 0.18. In total, 60.4% of patients had a reduction of 50% punctuation in the VAPS. No major complications were detected.
assistant
EUS CPN is useful for the management of pain in patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer, but there is no significant difference between central vs bilateral techniques. Final Decision: yes