Radiofrequency ablation of hepatocellular carcinomas: A new spectrum of anesthetic experience at a tertiary care hospital in Pakistan

Combined multiple regional anesthesia for microwave ablation of liver Tumors: Initial experience

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to assess the feasibility and safety of combined multiple regional anesthesia (CMRA) as a potential strategy to decrease pain and reliance on intravenous analgesics during and after ultrasound-guided microwave ablation (US-guided-MWA) of liver tumors.

METHODS

A cohort of 75 patients with a total of 99 liver tumors who underwent US-guided-MWA of liver tumors were enrolled. These patients were randomly allocated into three groups: A, B, and C. Prior to the ablation procedure, Group A patients received a combination of hepatic hilar block (HHB), Transversus abdominis plane block (TAPB), and local anesthesia (LA). Patients in Group B were administered HHB in conjunction with LA, while those in Group C received TAPB and LA. Evaluative parameters included the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) scores, consumption of morphine, incidence of complications, and factors influencing perioperative pain.

RESULTS

All patients successfully underwent US-guided-MWA. The peak NRS scores for pain during ablation across the three groups were 2.36 ± 1.19, 3.28 ± 1.59, and 4.24 ± 1.42 respectively (P < 0.01), while the count of patients requiring morphine were 4/25, 8/25, and 13/25 respectively (P < 0.01). Postoperative NRS scores for the three groups at 4, 8, 12, 24, and 36-hour intervals demonstrated a pattern of initial increase followed by a decrease, with the order at each interval being: Group A < Group C < Group B. Factors associated with increased pain included larger tumor size, greater number of tumors, and longer procedure and ablation time (P < 0.05). No major complications were recorded across the three groups.

CONCLUSION

CMRA offers an effective and safe modality to manage pain during and after US-guided-MWA of liver tumors.

Comparable and Complimentary Modalities for Treatment of Small-Sized HCC: Surgical Resection, Radiofrequency Ablation, and Microwave Ablation

BACKGROUND

Over the past decade, there has been continual improvement in both ablative and surgical technologies for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The efficacy of ablative therapy compared to surgical resection for HCC has not been thoroughly evaluated using multiple large-scale randomized controlled trials. By international consensus, if a patient is eligible, surgery is the primary curative treatment option, as it is believed to confer superior oncologic control.

OBJECTIVE

to determine the efficacies of percutaneous ablative therapies and surgical resection (SR) in the treatment of HCC. Data sources, study appraisal, and synthesis methods: A meta-analysis using 5 online databases dating back to 1989 with more than 31,000 patients analyzing patient and tumor characteristics, median follow-up, overall survival, and complication rate was performed.

RESULTS

Ablative therapies are suitable alternatives to surgical resection in terms of survival and complication rates for comparable patient populations. For the entire length of the study from 1989-2019, radiofrequency ablation (RFA) produced the highest 5-year survival rates (59.6%), followed by microwave ablation (MWA) (50.7%) and surgical resection (SR) (49.9%). In the most recent era from 2006 to 2019, surgical resection has produced the highest 5-year survival rate of 72.8%, followed by RFA at 61.7% and MWA at 50.6%. Conclusions and key findings: Depending on the disease state and comorbidities of the patient, one modality may offer superior overall survival rates over the other available techniques. Interventional ablative methods and surgical resection should be used in conjunction for the successful treatment of small-sized HCC.

Hepatic Hilar Nerve Block for Hepatic Interventions: Anatomy, Technique, and Initial Clinical Experience in Thermal Ablation of Liver Tumors

Background Image-guided procedures for treatment of liver diseases can be painful and require heavy sedation of the patient. Local-regional nerve blocks improve pain control and reduce oversedation risks, but there are no documented liver-specific nerve blocks. Purpose To develop a safe and technically simple liver-specific nerve block. Materials and Methods Between March 2017 and October 2019, three cadavers were dissected to evaluate the hepatic hilar anatomy. The hepatic hilar nerves were targeted with transhepatic placement of a needle adjacent to the main portal vein, under US guidance, and evaluated with use of an injection of methylene blue. A hepatic nerve block, using similar technique and 0.25% bupivacaine, was offered to patients undergoing liver tumoral ablation. In a prospective pilot study, 12 patients who received the nerve block were compared with a control group regarding complications, safety, pain scores, and intraoperative opioid requirement. Student t tests were used to compare the groups' characteristics, and Mann-Whitney U tests were used for the measured outcomes. Results Cadaver results confirmed that the hepatic nerves coursing in the hepatic hilum can be targeted with US for injection of anesthetic agents, with adequate spread of injected methylene blue around the nerves in the hepatic hilar perivascular space. The 12 participants (mean age ± standard deviation, 66 years ± 13; eight men) who received a hepatic hilar block before liver thermal ablations demonstrated reduced pain compared with a control group of 12 participants (mean age, 63 years ± 15; eight men) who received only intravenous sedation. Participants who received the nerve block had a lower mean visual analog scale score for pain than the control group (3.9 ± 2.4 vs 7.0 ± 2.8, respectively; P = .01) and decreased need for intraprocedural fentanyl (mean dose, 152 μg ± 78.0 vs 235.4 μg ± 58.2, respectively; P = .01). No major complications occurred in the hepatic hilar nerve block group. Conclusion A dedicated hepatic hilar nerve block with 0.25% bupivacaine can be safely performed to provide anesthesia during liver tumoral ablation. © RSNA, 2021.

Analgesic effects of dexmedetomidine and remifentanil on periprocedural pain during percutaneous ablation of renal carcinoma

Background: Percutaneous ablation of renal carcinoma is frequently a favourable treatment alternative, especially in elderly patients suffering from co-morbidities. Also, it is less resource-demanding than conventional surgery of renal carcinoma, and one may, therefore, assume that the incidence of this procedure may increase. Analgesia is necessary during this intervention. The aim of this study was to explore the possibility of analgosedation and its relation to patient comfort and safety during percutaneous ablation of renal carcinoma.Methods: Forty-six patients, sedated with dexmedetomidine and remifentanil, supplemented with infiltration anaesthesia (lidocaine 1%), underwent percutaneous (radiofrequency or microwave) ablation of renal carcinoma in this prospective study.Results: The patients expected pain intensity around the numerical rating score (NRS) 4.5 (interquartile range [IQR] 3.5-5.5), which was slightly lower than pain experienced during the procedure NRS 5 (IQR 2-7; p = 0.49). Eight percent of the patients needed supplementary morphine during the ablation procedure. Sedation score did not differ during ablation, at arrival to or discharge from the recovery ward. Median periprocedural treatment time was 12 minutes (IQR 12-16). Treatment time did not correlate with experienced pain (R²=0.000074, p = 0.96). The median length of stay in the recovery room was 120 minutes (IQR 84-154). There were seven serious adverse events.Conclusions: This proof-of-concept study has shown that analgosedation during percutaneous ablation of renal carcinoma can be performed with a generally tolerable degree of patient satisfaction. However, pain occurs and should be managed adequately. Patient safety must be a major concern for the anaesthetic care.

Efficacy and Safety of Deep Sedation in Percutaneous Radiofrequency Ablation for Hepatocellular Carcinoma

INTRODUCTION

Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) has been accepted as safe and effective for treating early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, it often causes severe pain. Therefore, in this study, we performed RFA under deep sedation and investigated its efficacy and safety.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study including 511 HCC patients who received approximately 886 RFA treatments between December 2014 and November 2016 at our institution. Respiratory depression was defined as oxygen saturation of below 90%; and severe body movement was defined as movement caused by pain, which was managed by lowering the power of the generator. Factors associated with respiratory depression and severe body movement were examined via univariate and multivariate regression analyses.

RESULTS

Respiratory depression occurred in 15.3% of the patients and severe body movement in 26.5% of the patients. In the multivariate analysis, BMI (≥ 25 kg/m², odds ratio [OR] = 1.75, P = 0.035) and longer ablation (≥ 10 min, OR = 2.59, P = 0.002) were significant respiratory depression-related factors. Male sex (OR = 2.02, P = 0.005), Child-Pugh class A (odds ratio = 1.96, P = 0.018), and longer ablation (≥ 10 min, OR = 3.03, P < 0.001) were significant factors related to severe body movement.

CONCLUSION

Deep sedation for RFA can be performed safely and effectively. Higher BMI and longer ablation were risk factors for respiratory depression and male sex, Child-Pugh class A, and longer ablation were independent predictors of severe body movement during RFA under deep sedation.

The management of peri- and postprocedural pain in interventional radiology: a narrative review

Interventional radiology encompasses a wide range of procedures and the degree of associated pain depends predominantly on the procedure being undertaken. Procedures may be painful during but not after the procedure, relatively painless during but painful after the procedure, or relatively painless during and after the procedure. However, there is a lack of good quality publications in interventional radiology that specifically address the subject of peri- and postprocedural pain management. Nevertheless, a variety of more or less complex protocols exist for intraprocedural sedation and for peri- and postprocedural analgesia. While weight-based protocols for procedural sedation have demonstrable benefit, protocols for postprocedural pain relief after major procedures have not been sufficiently rigorously evaluated.