The Role of Double Modality Ultrasonographic and Fluoroscopic Guided Superior Hypogastric Plexus Neurolysis in Treating Intractable Pelvic Cancer Pain: A Comparative Study

Ekramy M Abdelghafar; Ahmed H Othman; Mahmoud Salem Soliman; Ayman Kilany; Mohammed H Shaaban; Ehab H Shaker

doi:10.2147/JPR.S308743

The Role of Double Modality Ultrasonographic and Fluoroscopic Guided Superior Hypogastric Plexus Neurolysis in Treating Intractable Pelvic Cancer Pain: A Comparative Study

J Pain Res. 2021 May 27:14:1465-1473. doi: 10.2147/JPR.S308743. eCollection 2021.

Authors

Ekramy M Abdelghafar¹, Ahmed H Othman², Mahmoud Salem Soliman³, Ayman Kilany⁴, Mohammed H Shaaban⁵, Ehab H Shaker¹

Affiliations

¹ Department of Anesthesia, ICU And Pain Relief, National Cancer Institute, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt.
² Department of Anesthesia, ICU and Pain Relief, South Egypt Cancer Institute, Assiut University, Assiut, Egypt.
³ Department of Anesthesia, Critical Care and Pain Management, Faculty of Medicine, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt.
⁴ Department of Research on Children with Special Needs, National Research Center, Cairo, Egypt.
⁵ Department of Diagnostic & Interventional Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt.

Abstract

Background: Superior hypogastric neurolytic block is performed to block visceral pelvic pain. This could be performed through the anterior approach guided by CT or ultrasound and through a posterior approach, guided by fluoroscopy or CT.

Methods: Sixty adult patients with severe visceral pelvic pain (VAS>70 mm) were randomly divided into two groups. Group S: SHP block was done ultrasound guided using the anterior approach and confirmed by fluoroscopy. Group F: SHP block was done fluoroscopic guided using the posterior oblique approach. The VAS (visual analog scale), duration of the technique, time of X-ray exposure, patient satisfaction score, patient global impression of change (PGIC), quality of life score, and daily morphine consumption (mg/day) were measured pre-procedure and at the 1st, 4th, 8th, and 12th week after the procedure. In addition, any side effects of the procedure were recorded.

Results: There was a significant difference in VAS between the two groups (P<0.01) (better in group S). The quality of life score was improved from the pre-procedure in both groups (P<0.05), and morphine consumption was significantly lower in group S than in group F (P<0.05) at the 1st, 4th, and 8th week and not significant at the 12th week. The two groups show a statistically significant difference as regards the duration of the procedure and X-ray exposure (P<0.01). There was a statistically significant difference in the satisfactory score between the two groups at the 1st, 4th, 8th, and 12th week (P<0.01). As regards the PGIC score, there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups (P>0.05). In group S, no back pain was reported, while 11 patients of group F complained from post-procedure back pain (P<0.001).

Conclusion: The anterior ultrasound guided SHPB aided by fluoroscopy is suggested to be more superior to the standard fluoroscopic guided technique in relieving pelvic cancer pain and decreasing morphine consumption.

Keywords: fluoroscopy; pelvic pain; superior hypogastric block; ultrasound.