Flexible ureterorenoscopy and laser lithotripsy with regional anesthesia vs general anesthesia: A prospective randomized study

The Effect of Anesthesia Type on the Stability of the Surgical View on the Monitor in Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery for Renal Stone: A Prospective Observational Trial

Background and Objectives: Retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) is a minimally invasive technique for nephrolithiasis. RIRS is performed via a monitor screen displaying a magnified surgical site. Respiration can affect the stability of the surgical view during RIRS because the kidneys are close to the diaphragm. The purpose of this trial is to compare the effect of anesthesia type on the stability of the surgical view during RIRS between spinal anesthesia and general anesthesia. Materials and Methods: Patients were allocated to the general anesthesia group or spinal anesthesia group. During surgery, movement of the surgical field displayed on the monitor screen was graded by the first assistant on a 10-grade numeric rating scale (0-10). Next, it was also graded by the main surgeon. After surgery, we evaluated the discomfort with the anesthesia method for all patients. Results: Thirty-four patients were allocated to the general anesthesia group and 32 patients to the spinal anesthesia group. The average values of the two surgeons for surgical field oscillation grade showed vision on the monitor screen was more stable in the general anesthesia group than the spinal anesthesia group (3.3 ± 1.6 vs. 5.0 ± 1.6, p < 0.001). The degrees of the inconvenience of the surgery did not differ between the groups (0.7 ± 1.8 vs. 1.6 ± 2.6, p = 0.114), even though more patients reported inconvenience with a grade of 3 or more in the spinal anesthesia group (8.8% vs. 28.1%, p = 0.042). Conclusions: In terms of the visualization of the surgical site, general anesthesia might provide a more stable surgical view during RIRS compared to spinal anesthesia without increasing inconvenience induced by the type of anesthesia.

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.

Flexible ureteroscopy under local anesthesia for stone management: initial exploration and two-year experience

BACKGROUND

Flexible ureteroscopy (f-URS) is a minimally invasive surgical technique used for treating urinary tract stones. While general anesthesia (GA) is the standard method used, it comes with risks. Local anesthesia (LA) is a safer and more cost-effective alternative to GA, and its use in f-URS could potentially reduce patients' risks and increase accessibility to treatment. This study aims to investigate the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of using LA for f-URS in treating stones, as an initial experience in the diagnosis related group (DRG) era of China.

METHODS

Patients who met the inclusion and exclusion criteria and were continuously included in the study Between 2021 and 2023. We analyzed the stone free status, postoperative complication rate, hospitalization costs, and presented key points of the procedure performed under LA that we had summarized over the past two years.

RESULTS

A study of 614 patients undergoing f-URS under LA for urinary stones in our hospital showed 83.4% stone-free rate with a mean operative time of 44.12 ± 16.63 minutes; 18 patients experienced fever postoperatively, and 12 had ureteral injuries. No severe complication was reported. The cost of LA was found to be only 1.7% of the DRG payment, which is around $40. The highest VAS scores were observed during the sheath insertion, with STAI scores decreasing during and after surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

The study revealed that f-URS administered under LA was a well-tolerated, efficient, safe, and economical procedure. In the DRG era, this new anesthetic option for f-URS provides urologists with a more cost-effective alternative.

Ureteroscopy under conscious sedation: A proof-of-concept study

INTRODUCTION

Ureteroscopy (URS) is commonly performed under general anesthesia (GA) to maximize patient tolerability and minimize surgical complications; however, given the improvements in endoscopic technology and risks associated with GA, alternate forms of anesthesia have been postulated. We aimed to evaluate the outcomes of URS under conscious sedation.

METHODS

We completed a retrospective cohort study from November 2019 to June 2020 at a tertiary-level hospital. All URSs that were performed under urologist-directed conscious sedation were included. Our primary outcome was the ability to complete URS, defined as success rate. Secondary outcomes included: stone-free rate, intraoperative complication rate, hospital admission rate, and sedation requirement. Univariate- and multivariate-adjusted logistic regression analyses were employed.

RESULTS

Ninety-nine URSs were included. Most (73/99, 73.7%) were performed for urolithiasis. The overall success rate was 83.8% (83/99), with 81.0% (34/42) intra-renal and 70.0% (16/23) proximal ureter success rates. The stone-free rate was 80.8% (59/73). No intraoperative complications nor hospital admissions were reported. The mean amount of sedation required was 3 mg (interquartile range [IQR] 2-4] of midazolam and 100 μg (100-150) of fentanyl. On multivariate analysis, midazolam was significantly associated with increased success (odds ratio 2.496, 95% confidence interval 1.057-5.892, p=0.037).

CONCLUSIONS

We have shown that proximal and intrarenal URS under conscious sedation is safe and effective. We were limited by our lack of followup, small sample size, selection bias to chose healthy patients, and lack of patient tolerability data. Patients and healthcare systems may benefit from implementing this innovation more broadly.

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.