Spinal versus general anesthesia during retrograde intra-renal surgery: A propensity score matching analysis

Retrograde intrarenal surgery with central neuraxial blockade versus general anesthesia: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective

The aim of the article is to assess the impact of retrograde intrarenal surgery under central neuraxial blockade in comparison to general anesthesia (GA).

Material and Methodology

This systematic review was conducted following the guidelines set out by the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses. We conducted a comprehensive search across major electronic databases, including various types of studies such as descriptive studies and full-text literature, all of which were incorporated into the current review from 2018 to 2023. We involved those studies, which included the comparative study of spinal anesthesia (SA), epidural anesthesia (EA), and combined spinal epidural anesthesia with GA.

Result

In our meta-analysis of 12 studies, it was found that anesthesia technique significantly affected operation time, with neuraxial anesthesia (NA) showing a mean difference of -2.28 (95% confidence interval (CI): -3.5 to -1.04, P = 0.003) compared to GA. However, there were no significant differences in rates of stone clearance, 24-h pain scores and length of hospital stay among patients administered with NA or GA for retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS).

Conclusion

On the basis of the outcomes of study, NA can serve as a viable alternative to GA for RIRS. Our analysis reveals no significant differences in rates of stone clearance, operation duration, 24-h pain scores, complication rates, and length of hospital stay between NA in addition to GA in the context of RIRS. This suggests that given the potential economic advantages, NA might be a preferable choice over GA, contingent on patient preferences, baseline characteristics, and stone burden.

Sustainability in Urology: Ideas for a Greener Future

Sustainability in urology can be achieved via conscientious practices that minimize the negative impact of our services while achieving ethical and responsible patient care. We highlight novel and actionable ideas that could pave the path towards healthier, greener urological practice.

International Alliance of Urolithiasis guideline on retrograde intrarenal surgery

OBJECTIVES

To set out the second in a series of guidelines on the treatment of urolithiasis by the International Alliance of Urolithiasis that concerns retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS), with the aim of providing a clinical framework for urologists performing RIRS.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

After a comprehensive search of RIRS-related literature published between 1 January 1964 and 1 October 2021 from the PubMed database, systematic review and assessment were performed to inform a series of recommendations, which were graded using modified GRADE methodology. Additionally, quality of evidence was classified using a modification of the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Levels of Evidence system. Finally, related comments were provided.

RESULTS

A total of 36 recommendations were developed and graded that covered the following topics: indications and contraindications; preoperative imaging; preoperative ureteric stenting; preoperative medications; peri-operative antibiotics; management of antithrombotic therapy; anaesthesia; patient positioning; equipment; lithotripsy; exit strategy; and complications.

CONCLUSION

The series of recommendations regarding RIRS, along with the related commentary and supporting documentation, offered here should help provide safe and effective performance of RIRS.

Outcomes of Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery Performed Under Neuraxial vs. General Anesthesia: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

The current review aimed to assess if the outcomes of retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) differ with neuraxial anesthesia (NA) or general anesthesia (GA).

Methods

The databases of PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, ScienceDirect, and Google Scholar were searched up to 3rd December 2021 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing outcomes of RIRS with NA or GA.

Results

Thirteen studies involving 2912 patients were included. Eight were RCTs while remaining were observational studies. Meta-analysis revealed that stone free status after RIRS did not differ with NA or GA (OR: 0.99 95% CI: 0.77, 1.26 I2 = 10% p = 0.91). Similarly, there was no difference in operation time (MD: -0.35 95% CI: -4.04, 3.34 I2 = 89% p = 0.85), 24 h pain scores (MD: -0.36 95% CI: -0.96, 0.23 I2 = 95% p = 0.23), length of hospital stay (MD: 0.01 95% CI: -0.06, 0.08 I2 = 35% p = 0.78), Clavien-Dindo grade I (OR: 0.74 95% CI: 0.52, 1.06 I2 = 13% p = 0.10), grade II (OR: 0.70 95% CI: 0.45, 1.07 I2 = 0% p = 0.10) and grade III/IV complication rates (OR: 0.78 95% CI: 0.45, 1.35 I2 = 0% p = 0.37) between NA and GA. Except for grade I complications, the results did not change on subgroup analysis based on study type and NA type.

Conclusion

Our results suggest that NA can be an alternative to GA for RIRS. There seem to be no difference in the stone-free rates, operation time, 24-h pain scores, complication rates, and length of hospital stay between NA and GA for RIRS. Considering the economic benefits, the use of NA may be preferred over GA while taking into account patient willingness, baseline patient characteristics, and stone burden.

Systematic Review Registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier: CRD42021295407.