Neuropathic pain is difficult to diagnose and difficult to treat with certainty. So the aim of the study was to evaluate comparative clinical efficacy of pregabaline with amitriptyline and gabapentin in neuropathic cancer pain. A total of 120 patients with cancer having severe neuropathic cancer pain were enrolled in the study after taking approval from Institutional Ethics Committee and divided in to 4 groups: group AT-amitriptyline, group GB-gabapentin, group PG-pregabalin, and group PL-placebo. Oral morphine was used for rescue analgesic for continued pain. Pain score (Visual Analogue scale) and secondary outcome measures such as intensity of lancinating, dysesthesia, and burning on numerical rating scale, Global satisfaction score (GSS), Eastern Co-operative Oncology Group scoring (ECOG), and adverse effects were assessed. At the end of study there was significant decrease in pain score in group PG as compared to the other groups; group AT (P = .003), group GB (P = .042), and group PL (P = .024). Percentage of patients with lancinating pain and dysesthesia were significantly less in group PG as compared to groups GB and PL. All the patients in group PL needed rescue morphine. After 4 visits, maximum improvement in ECOG scoring and GSS scoring was observed in group PG patients. Our results suggested that all antineuropathic drugs are effective in relieving cancer-related neuropathic pain. There was statistically and clinically significant morphine sparing effect of pregabaline in relieving neuropathic cancer pain and neuropathic symptoms as compared to other antineuropathic drugs.
Patients with advanced gastrointestinal and pelvic malignancies commonly present with pain of varying severity. In a majority of these patients, pain can be effectively managed using an integrated systemic pharmacological approach with oral morphine being the cornerstone of treatment. However, with escalating doses, intolerable side effects of oral morphine may lead to patient dissatisfaction. When oral pharmacotherapy fails to adequately address the issue of pain or leads to insufferable side effects, neurolytic blocks of the sympathetic axis are usually used for pain alleviation. As these blocks may reduce oral analgesic requirement, a reevaluation of their timing is merited. This article presents our hospital-based in-patient palliative care unit experience with early ultrasonography-guided neurolysis of celiac plexus, superior hypogastric plexus and ganglion impar. Of the 44 patients we studied, 20 underwent celiac plexus neurolysis, 18 superior hypogastric plexus neurolysis, and 6 ganglion impar neurolysis. Their pain was being managed with oral morphine before neurolysis, but only 11.4% patients required oral morphine for satisfactory pain control, 2 months after neurolysis. The mean Visual Analog Scale score before block placement was 5.64 ± 0.69 and fell to 2.25 ± 1.33 at 2 months post neurolysis (P < 0.001). We suggest that bedside ultrasonography-guided sympathetic axis neurolysis may be employed early in patients with incurable abdominal or pelvic cancer. Its use as a first-line intervention for achieving pain control with minimal complications warrants further consideration and investigation.
Peripheral nerve field stimulation (PNFS) is being applied in individual cases where conventional treatments have failed to control pain localized to limited dermatomal distribution. We applied PNFS for unrelieved post-thoracotomy scar pain. Although spinal cord stimulation may have resulted in good coverage in the same dermatomal distribution, we chose the more peripheral approach to minimize the risk of complications, avoiding the potential neurologic sequelae associated with stimulation of the spinal cord. In summary, PNFS was effective in relieving post-thoractomy pain refractory to conventional pain management suggesting great potential of PNFS as a treatment option for chronic surgical-scar pain.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.