Is micro-percutaneous nephrolithotomy surgery technically feasible and efficient under spinal anesthesia?


Karatag T., Tepeler A., Buldu I., AKÇAY M. , TOSUN M. , Istanbulluoglu M. O. , ...More

UROLITHIASIS, vol.43, no.3, pp.249-254, 2015 (Journal Indexed in SCI) identifier identifier identifier

  • Publication Type: Article / Article
  • Volume: 43 Issue: 3
  • Publication Date: 2015
  • Doi Number: 10.1007/s00240-015-0752-x
  • Title of Journal : UROLITHIASIS
  • Page Numbers: pp.249-254

Abstract

The objective of the study was to present the clinical and operative effects of two types of anesthesia on micro-percutaneous nephrolithotomy ("microperc"). We retrospectively reviewed 116 patients who underwent microperc between August 2011 and September 2013. Patients were sorted into one of the two groups according to the type of anesthesia received: general (Group 1, n:53) or spinal (Group 2, n:63). Perioperative variables (age, stone size, location) and outcomes (operation time, success, complication rate) were evaluated and compared. Although there was a statistically significant difference in the mean age of patients (30.3 +/- A 22.1 vs. 45.8 +/- A 14.6, respectively, p < 0.001), mean body mass indexes were similar (p = 0.689). There was no substantial difference in terms of sizes and localizations of stones in the two groups (p = 0.970 and p = 0.795). While a significant difference was found in comparison of operative times (59.62 +/- A 32.56 vs. 40.98 +/- A 26.45 min, p < 0.001), there was no statistically significant difference in mean fluoroscopy times (124.92 +/- A 84.2 vs. 105.2 +/- A 61.0 s, p = 0.441). Stone-free rates were similar (90.5 % vs. 93.6 %, p = 0.297). We found no statistical differences between the two groups with respect to mean hemoglobin drop and hospitalization time (p = 0.015 and p = 0.917, respectively). The complication rates and analog pain scores were also similar (p = 0.543 and p = 0.365). Our results show that microperc is a feasible surgical modality in the treatment of kidney stone disease under both spinal and general anesthesia. Spinal anesthesia may be considered for patients at a high risk for general anesthesia, and also may be an alternative for patients who are concerned about and/or fearful of general anesthesia.