MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Celiac Plexus Block and Celiac Neurolysis: A Systematic Review of Efficacy, Safety, and Protocols

2018· review· en· W2921624253 on OpenAlexaff
Alastair Dorreen, Zhao Wu Meng, Avijit Chatterjee

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAnesthesia and Pain Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEndoscopic ultrasoundPancreatitisPancreatic cancerRandomized controlled trialNeurolysisCeliac plexusEndoscopySurgeryCancerInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: The advent of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided celiac plexus block (CPB) and celiac plexus neurolysis (CPN) has provided immeasurable benefit for patients with pain from chronic pancreatitis and pancreatic malignancies. There are differences in efficacy based on indication and protocol used for CPN and CPB. Here we aim to characterize efficacy, safety, and variations in protocol of both EUS-guided CPB and CPN by performing a systematic review of the literature. Methods: Using predefined keywords a search was performed using the EMBASE, Medline, and Cochrane databases through January 2018. Abstracts that discussed the outcomes of EUS-guided CPN and/or CPB were considered for inclusion. Data was abstracted from all papers, including demographic information, indication for CPN and CPB, protocol used for CPN and CPB, outcomes of intervention, and complication rates of endoscopy. Weighted data was used to calculate the efficacy and complications. Results: Following a database search, 437 abstracts were reviewed. 35 studies were selected for data abstraction of which 8 were randomized trials, 16 prospective, and 11 retrospective. 1290 patients underwent CPN and 714 underwent CPB. In those undergoing CPB and CPN, the main indications were chronic pancreatitis (98%, 698/714) and pancreatic cancer (99%, 1278/1290) respectively. In studies reporting the rate of response, overall initial response was 64% (873/1369). CPN and CPB had an initial response rate of 65% (482/745, range 25-100%) and 63% (391/624, range 0-100%) respectively. When celiac ganglia were targeted, response was 74% (68/92, range 65-94%). Duration of response varied widely across all studies and interpretation was limited by duration of follow-up. No deaths or perforations were reported. There was 1 upper gastrointestinal bleed and 1 peri-pancreatic abscess attributed to the intervention. The most common side effects were transient diarrhea and transient hypotension. In regards to anesthetic agents used, bupivacaine 0.25-0.75%, lidocaine 1.0-2.0%, and xylocaine 1.0% were all used. Triamcinolone was used in doses ranging from 40-160 mg. Finally, alcohol 95-99% was used in doses ranging from <5 ml to 20 ml. One study looked at the efficacy of phenol 7% as a neurolytic agent in those intolerant of alcohol. Conclusion: Overall, CPB and CPN appear to be effective and safe modalities at controlling pain. Due to variations in protocol, clinical guidelines are required to outline best-practice for both EUS-guided CPB and CPN.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.038
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.146
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.201

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0380.146
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.011
Bibliometrics0.0120.013
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.304 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology→Same topicAnesthesia and Pain Management→French-language works237,207→