Efficacy of splanchnic nerve neurolysis in the management of upper abdominal cancer pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Aims: Neurolytic splanchnic nerve block (NSNB) is practised in intractable abdominal pain secondary to intra-abdominal malignancies. This review evaluated the efficacy of NSNB. Methods: PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane databases were searched for articles published from January 2001 to October 2023. Two independent reviewers extracted the data from the included studies. The quality of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) was assessed using the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool (RoB 2), and the Newcastle–Ottawa scale was used for cohort studies. Results: Fourteen articles (4 RCTs, 3 non-randomised prospective, and 7 retrospectives) were included. Ten articles were quantitatively assessed and demonstrated significant pain relief at 1 week (standardised mean difference (SMD): 3.46 [2.09, 4.83], P < 0.001, I 2 = 95%), 2 weeks (SMD: 4.45 [2.61, 6.29], P < 0.001, I 2 = 95%), 4 weeks (SMD: 3.35 [2.23, 4.47], P < 0.001, I 2 = 97%), 8 weeks (SMD: 3.7 [2.71, 4.7], P < 0.001, I 2 = 86%), 12 weeks (SMD: 4.01 [2.66, 5.36], P < 0.001, I 2 = 95%), and 24 weeks (SMD: 2.54 [1.71,3.37], P < 0.001, I 2 = 84%). Daily narcotic consumption and quality of life (QOL) significantly improved post neurolysis, but survival rates showed controversial results. Significant heterogeneity was reported, and sub-group analysis revealed a moderate level of variability [I 2 = 47.3%] pertaining to study design as a source of heterogeneity. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Pro GDT recommendation for the primary objective was ‘high’ for the analysis of RCTs and ‘very low’ evidence quality for observational studies. Only transient minor complications were reported. Conclusion: NSNB appears to be an efficacious technique that provides substantial pain relief, reduces opioid consumption, and ameliorates QOL.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".