Mini-percutaneous Nephrolithotomy Under mixture of Local Anesthesia: A Randomized-Controlled Study

A Systematic Review of Loco-Sedative Anesthesia for Urologic Surgery

OBJECTIVE

To perform a systematic review of the characteristics and outcomes of conscious sedation and local anesthesia for various urologic procedures. Urologic care has much to gain from the routine integration of ambulatory surgery via loco-sedative anesthetic techniques for both surgeon and patient.

METHODS

A comprehensive systematic literature search was conducted on PubMed, and Scopus databases following PRISMA criteria from June to August 2021. Articles were included if they were English, prospective, randomized, or nonrandomized controlled trials that used local anesthetic or conscious sedation for urologic interventions in adult patients. Additionally, included studies provided primary data on the use loco-sedative anesthesia and the efficacy and complications. All studies included were further reviewed to assess the biases and conflicts of interests.

RESULTS

Thirty-two studies with 6897 patients were included in the review. Mean patient age was 46.4years. The most common anesthetic and analgesic relief was the use of local anesthetic with 1% lidocaine. The majority used lidocaine as an injection, whereas the second most common route of administration was a topical cream. However, there was significant heterogeneity in the type of local or conscious sedation method and whether a combination was used. 44.4% of the studies used the visual analog scale as their primary endpoint. All the studies reported an 83%-100% successful procedure rate without note of significant sedation-related complications.

CONCLUSION

Given the high efficacy rates, loco-sedative anesthesia is a promising technique for urologic interventions and should be further investigated to determine whether it may become be the standard of care.

Outcome of Mini-PCNL Under Loco-Regional Anesthesia: Outcomes of a Systematic Review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Miniaturized PCNL (mi-PCNL) for stone disease is performed under a general anesthesia. However, the role of loco-regional anesthesia in mi-PCNL and its outcomes are not well defined yet. Here, we review the outcomes and complications of loco-regional anesthesia for mi-PCNL. A Cochrane-style review was performed in accordance with the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews to evaluate the outcomes of loco-reginal anesthesia for URS in stone disease, including all English language articles from January 1980 and October 2021.

RECENT FINDINGS

Ten studies with a total of 1663 patients underwent mi-PCNL under loco-regional anesthesia. The stone-free rate (SFR) for mi-PCNL under neuro-axial anesthesia ranged between 88.3 and 93.6%, while it ranged between 85.7 and 93.3% for mi-PCNL under local anesthesia (LA). The conversion rate to another anesthesia modality was 0.5%. The complications ranged widely between 3.3 and 85.7%. The majority were Grade I-II complications and none of the patients had grade V complications. Our review shows that mi-PCNL under loco-regional anesthesia is feasible with good SFR and a low risk of major complications. The conversion to general anesthesia is needed in a small minority, with the procedure itself being well tolerated and a big step towards establishing an ambulatory pathway for these patients.

Can trajectory nor-epinephrine infiltration reduce blood loss during percutaneous nephrolithotomy? A double-blinded randomized controlled trial

PURPOSE

To determine the efficacy and safety of trajectory infiltration with 1:150 000 Norepinephrine (NE) in reducing blood loss during percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a prospective randomized double-blinded placebo-controlled trial. In all, 140 consecutive patients underwent PCNL for the management of large renal calculi. They were randomly assigned (1:1) to one of either study groups, the NE-PCNL group (70 patients whose PCNL-trajectory was infiltrated by NE) or the Placebo group (saline PCNL) (70 patients whose PCNL tracts were infiltrated by normal saline). Procedure-related blood loss (the primary outcome) was assessed and statistically analyzed. Also, all other procedure-related events and complications were recorded and compared.

RESULTS

The median blood loss was 378 ml (IQR: 252-504) in the NE-PCNL group versus 592 ml (IQR: 378-756) in the S-PCNL group (p < 0.0001). In addition, Hemoglobin and Hematocrit deficits were lower in NE-PCNL (p < 0.05). Patients who were randomized to the NE-PCNL group had a higher immediate stone-free rate (SFR) (80%) compared with those of the S-PCNL group (70%) (p = 0.034). However, no statistical differences were found in the final SFR. The reported overall complications between the 2 groups were similar (p > 0.05). Indeed, bleeding-related complications were 1 (1.4%) versus 10 (14.3%) for NE-PCNL and S-PCNL, respectively (p = 0.009).

CONCLUSIONS

Trajectory infiltration of PCNL tracts by NE was found to be effective and safe in mitigation of PCNL-related blood loss. This step is a timeless and cost-effective as NE is readily available in surgical theaters and of very low cost.