Transdiscal vs Paravertebral Neurolytic Splanchnic Nerve Block for Upper Abdominal Cancer Pain

February 25, 2026 updated by: Gökhan Yıldız, Ankara Etlik City Hospital

Comparison of Transdiscal and Paravertebral Approaches for Neurolytic Splanchnic Nerve Block in the Treatment of Upper Abdominal Cancer Pain

This study aims to compare the efficacy of fluoroscopy-guided paravertebral (PV) and transdiscal (TD) approaches for splanchnic nerve neurolysis in patients with upper abdominal cancer-related pain (e.g., gastric, pancreatic, and hepatic malignancies). Treatment response will be assessed using the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS), and the impact of both techniques on quality of life will be evaluated with the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire.

Study Overview

Status

Recruiting

Conditions

Intervention / Treatment

Detailed Description

Cancer-related pain (CRP) is a complex and challenging condition to manage. Pain may be somatic, visceral, or neuropathic in origin, and more than 50% of patients present with a mixed pain pattern at the time of diagnosis. In addition to medical therapies such as opioids and adjuvant analgesics, various interventional procedures are used in the management of CRP. Among these, neurolytic nerve and plexus blocks represent effective options for patients with pain refractory to conservative treatment. Chemical neurolysis, as a minimally invasive neurolytic plexus block technique, provides effective analgesia by targeting both sensory afferent fibers and sympathetic fibers innervating visceral organs. Identifying the most appropriate block according to pain localization plays a crucial role in achieving successful pain control.

Splanchnic nerve neurolysis is an established interventional technique for the management of upper abdominal cancer pain associated with pancreatic, gastric, and hepatic malignancies. Both the paravertebral (PV) and transdiscal (TD) approaches have been shown to effectively reduce cancer-related abdominal pain and significantly improve quality of life in affected patients. However, comparative data between these two techniques remain limited.

The primary aim of this study is to compare the efficacy of paravertebral (PV) and transdiscal (TD) splanchnic nerve neurolysis in patients with severe upper abdominal cancer pain refractory to medical therapy, using the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) for pain assessment. Secondary aims include evaluating the impact of these techniques on quality of life using the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire, comparing changes in opioid consumption, comparing procedure duration and fluoroscopy imaging time, and determining the incidence of adverse events.

A total of 56 patients, 28 in each group, will be enrolled. Pain intensity will be assessed using the NRS before the procedure and at 3 days, 1 month, and 3 months after the intervention. Quality of life will be evaluated using the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire before the procedure and at 1 and 3 months post-intervention. Procedure-related adverse events will be recorded.

Study Type

Interventional

Enrollment (Estimated)

56

Phase

  • Not Applicable

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Contact

Study Locations

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Ages Eligible for Study

  • Adult
  • Older Adult

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Severe abdominal pain (NRS > 6) due to upper intra-abdominal organ malignancies (such as gastric, pancreatic, or hepatic cancer).
  • Failure of pain control with conservative treatment modalities.

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Presence of local anatomical variations
  • Localized or systemic infection involving the procedural site
  • Pregnancy
  • Coagulopathy
  • Presence of unstable psychiatric disorders

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

  • Primary Purpose: Treatment
  • Allocation: Randomized
  • Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
  • Masking: Single

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm
Intervention / Treatment
Active Comparator: transdiscal splanchnic neurolysis group
Transdiscal splanchnic neurolysis for upper gastrointestinal malignancy pain
Procedure: transdiscal splanchnic neurolysis
With the patient in the prone position, the T11-T12 vertebral levels were identified under anteroposterior fluoroscopic guidance, and the C-arm was adjusted to align the superior and inferior endplates of the T11-T12 intervertebral disc. The fluoroscope was then rotated obliquely to position the tip of the T12 superior articular process at the midpoint of the T11 vertebral body. After local anesthesia with 2 mL of 1% lidocaine, a spinal needle was advanced to the target point. The ideal final needle position was at the center of the intervertebral disc on the anteroposterior view and at the anterior border of the vertebral body on the lateral view. Correct needle placement was confirmed fluoroscopically, followed by injection of 1-2 mL of nonionic contrast to verify appropriate retrocrural spread. After a successful test dose with 10 mL of 1% lidocaine resulting in >50% pain relief, 10 mL of 96% alcohol was slowly injected for neurolysis.
Active Comparator: paravertebral splanchnic neurolysis group
Paravertebral splanchnic neurolysis for upper gastrointestinal malignancy pain
Procedure: paravertebral splanchnic neurolysis
Under C-arm fluoroscopic guidance, the inferior border of the T11 vertebral body was used as a reference, and the fluoroscope was adjusted to a 15-20° craniocaudal and approximately 15-20° oblique angle. The needle entry point was selected slightly inferior to the T11 transverse process, and after local anesthesia with 2 mL of 1% lidocaine, the spinal needle was advanced along the lateral aspect of the vertebral body. On lateral fluoroscopic view, the needle tip was positioned at the anterior two-thirds of the vertebral body. Correct needle placement was confirmed fluoroscopically, followed by negative aspiration and injection of 1-2 mL of nonionic contrast to verify appropriate retrocrural spread. After a successful test dose with 5 mL of 1% lidocaine resulting in >50% pain relief, 5 mL of 96% alcohol was slowly injected for neurolysis. The same procedure was repeated contralaterally, resulting in a total of 10 mL of 96% alcohol.

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Numerical rating scale (NRS)
Time Frame: Change from baseline to post-treatment day 3, and at 1 and 3 months.
NRS is a scale that can be used measuring pain. Scores range from 0 (no pain) to 10 (the worst pain)
Change from baseline to post-treatment day 3, and at 1 and 3 months.

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire
Time Frame: Change from baseline to 1st and 3rd month after treatment
The EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire is used to assess health-related quality of life in patients with cancer. It consists of 30 items comprising five functional scales (physical, role, emotional, cognitive, and social functioning), three symptom scales (fatigue, pain, and nausea/vomiting), a global health status/quality of life scale, and several single-item symptom measures. Scores are linearly transformed to a 0-100 scale. Higher scores on functional and global health scales indicate better quality of life, whereas higher scores on symptom scales indicate greater symptom burden.
Change from baseline to 1st and 3rd month after treatment
Fluoroscopy imaging time
Time Frame: During procedure
Fluoroscopy imaging time is used as a secondary outcome to evaluate procedural exposure. It is defined as the total duration of active fluoroscopic imaging, measured in seconds, from the first fluoroscopic image acquisition to the final image obtained during the procedure.
During procedure

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Sponsor

Ankara Etlik City Hospital

Investigators

  • Principal Investigator: Gokhan Yildiz, Ankara Etlik City Hospital

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start (Actual)

February 16, 2026

Primary Completion (Estimated)

August 16, 2026

Study Completion (Estimated)

September 16, 2026

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

February 22, 2026

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

February 25, 2026

First Posted (Actual)

March 3, 2026

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Actual)

March 3, 2026

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

February 25, 2026

Last Verified

February 1, 2026

More Information

Terms related to this study

Keywords

Additional Relevant MeSH Terms

Other Study ID Numbers

  • Transdiscal vs Paravert SNB

Drug and device information, study documents

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product

No

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product

No

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Clinical Trials on Cancer Pain

Clinical Trials on transdiscal splanchnic neurolysis

Search Similar Trials

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

CROs by country

CROs in Serbia

Conditions

Rare Diseases

Drug Interventions

Dietary Supplements

Sponsor/Collaborators

Locations

Subscribe