Cancer Pain, Liver Neoplasms, Pain
Conditions
Keywords
percutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, pain, liver cancer, hepatocellular carcinoma
Brief summary
This study evaluates the effect of percutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (PENS) and transcutaneous nerve stimulation (TENS) for pain relieving in patients with liver cancer. Patients will randomly allocated into PENS group, Tens group and control group.
Detailed description
PENS and TENS have been reported with analgesic effect in patients with pain, including cancer pain, lower back pain, neck pain, stomachache and so on. Effect and mechanism of PENS on pain relieving has been widely researched. With additional electrical stimulation in certain frequency and intensity to conventional acupuncture, pain controlling effect has been largely enhanced. However, invasive operation limits its application and acceptability, especially on pancreatic cancer. TENS is an advanced technique generated from PENS, which is much more welcome for its noninvasive character. Further more, its analgesic effect on cancer pain has been proved by several multi-central, randomized, clinical trials.
Interventions
DEVICEPENS
percutaneous electrical nerve stimulation
DEVICETENS
transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation
Sponsors
Fuda Cancer Hospital, Guangzhou
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
QUADRUPLE (Subject, Caregiver, Investigator, Outcomes Assessor)
Masking description
Participant is allocated randomly by staff A, and grouping situation is concealed; Technician (stuff B) or chargeing docotor operates PENS or TENS, or administers oral analgesic medication; Related datas are collected according to perdetermined forms by stuff C; Outcomes are assessed by stuff D.
Intervention model description
patients with liver cancer pain.
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to 70 Years
Healthy volunteers
No
Inclusion criteria
* Primary liver cancer with pain; * Haven't underwent neurolytic celiac plexus block in the past 1 month; * With anticipatory survival of more than 3 months.
Exclusion criteria
* Metastatic liver cancer; * Can not tolerate a flat or side lying or sitting prostrate for 30 min; * performance score\>3; * Who has been recruited in other clinical trial for pain relieving; * Who underwent radiotherapy or local radioactive seeds implantation for pain relieving in the past month; * Imaging diagnosed with encephalic tumor or metastasis; * Who with cardiac pacemaker or metal stand;
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| pain score | day0 to day6 | pain score assessed via visual analogue scale (VAS) |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| quantity of analgesic medication | day0 to Day6 | decreasing in quantity of analgesic medication |
| times of breakthrough pain (BTP) | day0 to day6 | times of BTP per day |
Other
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| complications | day1 to day3 | any correlated complications happen during procedure |
Countries
China
Outcome results
None listed