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

Sedation vs. general anesthesia in stone ureteroscopy: Comparison of efficacy and safety, a post COVID-19 report

INTRODUCTION

Ureterorenoscopy (URS) for ureteral or renal stones is traditionally performed under general anesthesia (GA). Sedation is an alternative to GA, allowing control of the level of consciousness, spontaneous ventilation, and faster recovery. Our aim was to compare sedation and GA for patients undergoing ureterorenoscopy. Endpoints were stone-free rate (SFR) and complication rates.

METHOD

Monocentric comparative retrospective study including all consecutive ureterorenoscopies for ureteral or renal stone. The inclusion period was dichotomized in two 6-months periods due to the COVID-19 pandemic: from January 1 to July 1, 2019 (URS under GA) and from January 1 to July 1, 2021 (URS under GA or sedation). Stone-free (SF) status was defined as the absence of stone or fragment>4mm after the first ureterorenoscopy. Complication rates were assessed according to the Satava (perioperative complications) and Clavien-Dindo (postoperative complications) classifications. Statistical analysis was performed by Chi-square test.

RESULTS

A total of 185 patients were included for a total of 206 ureterorenoscopies; 82 underwent ureterorenoscopy under GA and 103 under sedation. The median stone size was 10 [7-16] mm. In all, 150 (81%) patients had at least one intrarenal stone. The SFR was similar between the two groups (67% GA group, 69% sedation group, P=0.912). In the sedation group, the mean SFR in ureter was 83.7% vs. 92.5% in the GA group. In renal cavities, the mean SFR was 46.4% in the sedation group vs. 42.5% in the GA group. Satava grade I, IIa, and IIb complications were 5 (6%), 5 (6%), and 1 (1%) in the GA group and 6 (6%), 1 (1%), and 3 (3%) in the sedation group, respectively (P=0.214). The grade I, II, III, and IV Clavien complications were 6 (7%), 3 (4%), 0 (0%), and 2 (2%) in the GA group and 6 (6%), 4 (4%), 1 (1%), and 4 (4%) in the sedation group, respectively (P=0.928).

CONCLUSION

Our post COVID-19 study showed no difference in efficacy and safety between ureterorenoscopy under sedation and GA for patients with renal stones. Our results confirm the interest of the sedation procedure, particularly in the context of outpatient surgery.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4

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.