Spinal Anesthesia versus General Anesthesia in the Endoscopic Management of Proximal Ureteral Stones: A Critical Evaluation Focusing on the Total Anesthesia Time.

IF 1.5 4区医学 Q3 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY

Urologia Internationalis Pub Date : 2024-12-19 DOI:10.1159/000543203

Emre Bulbul, Fahri Yavuz Ilki, Yasin Yitgin, Fatih Ustun, Ali Sezer, Ela Erten, Emine Yitgin, Selahattin Bedir, Kemal Sarica

{"title":"Spinal Anesthesia versus General Anesthesia in the Endoscopic Management of Proximal Ureteral Stones: A Critical Evaluation Focusing on the Total Anesthesia Time.","authors":"Emre Bulbul, Fahri Yavuz Ilki, Yasin Yitgin, Fatih Ustun, Ali Sezer, Ela Erten, Emine Yitgin, Selahattin Bedir, Kemal Sarica","doi":"10.1159/000543203","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: This study aimed to compare spinal and general anesthesia methods in endoscopic management of proximal ureteral stones with a particular emphasis on total anesthesia time.Methods: A total of 246 adult patients undergoing ureteroscopic management for proximal ureteral stones between January 2021 and March 2023 were enrolled. Two different types of anesthesia, namely, spinal (group 1, n = 109) and general (group 2, n = 137) anesthesia, were applied during these procedures.Results: The mean total anesthesia time of group 1 was statistically significantly shorter than that of group 2 (61.4 ± 28.7 and 93.7 ± 29.2 min, respectively, p = 0.013). While 92.7% of patients in group 1 were stone free after the interventions, this value was 92% in group 2 (p = 0.828). There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups regarding peri- (p = 0.126) or postoperative (p = 0.284) complications.Conclusions: Our results demonstrated well that both spinal and general anesthesia methods could be applied in a successful and safe manner in the endoscopic management of proximal ureteral stones. However, a shorter total anesthesia time under spinal anesthesia could be anticipated during endoscopic management of proximal ureteral stones.","PeriodicalId":23414,"journal":{"name":"Urologia Internationalis","volume":" ","pages":"1-8"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Urologia Internationalis","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000543203","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: This study aimed to compare spinal and general anesthesia methods in endoscopic management of proximal ureteral stones with a particular emphasis on total anesthesia time.

Methods: A total of 246 adult patients undergoing ureteroscopic management for proximal ureteral stones between January 2021 and March 2023 were enrolled. Two different types of anesthesia, namely, spinal (group 1, n = 109) and general (group 2, n = 137) anesthesia, were applied during these procedures.

Results: The mean total anesthesia time of group 1 was statistically significantly shorter than that of group 2 (61.4 ± 28.7 and 93.7 ± 29.2 min, respectively, p = 0.013). While 92.7% of patients in group 1 were stone free after the interventions, this value was 92% in group 2 (p = 0.828). There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups regarding peri- (p = 0.126) or postoperative (p = 0.284) complications.

Conclusions: Our results demonstrated well that both spinal and general anesthesia methods could be applied in a successful and safe manner in the endoscopic management of proximal ureteral stones. However, a shorter total anesthesia time under spinal anesthesia could be anticipated during endoscopic management of proximal ureteral stones.

查看原文本刊更多论文

在输尿管近端结石的内镜治疗中，脊髓麻醉与全身麻醉的对比：对总麻醉时间的关键评价。

简介：本研究旨在比较脊髓麻醉和全身麻醉在内镜下治疗输尿管近端结石的方法，并特别强调全麻醉时间。方法：共纳入2021年1月至2023年3月期间接受输尿管镜治疗输尿管近端结石的246例成年患者。两种不同类型的麻醉，即脊髓麻醉（1组，n=109）和全身麻醉（2组，n=137）。结果：组1平均总麻醉时间明显短于组2（61.4±28.7 min、93.7±29.2 min, p=0.013）。干预后，第1组92.7%的患者结石消失，第2组为92% （p=0.828）。两组患者围手术期并发症（p=0.126）和术后并发症（p=0.284）比较，差异均无统计学意义。结论：在输尿管近端结石的内镜治疗中，脊髓麻醉和全身麻醉均可安全、成功地应用。然而，在输尿管近端结石的内镜治疗中，脊髓麻醉下的全麻醉时间较短。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Urologia Internationalis 医学-泌尿学与肾脏学

CiteScore

3.30

自引率

6.20%

发文量

审稿时长

3-8 weeks

期刊介绍： Concise but fully substantiated international reports of clinically oriented research into science and current management of urogenital disorders form the nucleus of original as well as basic research papers. These are supplemented by up-to-date reviews by international experts on the state-of-the-art of key topics of clinical urological practice. Essential topics receiving regular coverage include the introduction of new techniques and instrumentation as well as the evaluation of new functional tests and diagnostic methods. Special attention is given to advances in surgical techniques and clinical oncology. The regular publication of selected case reports represents the great variation in urological disease and illustrates treatment solutions in singular cases.