Spinal anesthesia vs general anesthesia in the endoscopic management of proximal ureteral stones: A critical evaluation focusing on the total anesthesia time.

IF 1.5 4区医学 Q3 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY Urologia Internationalis Pub Date : 2024-12-19 DOI:10.1159/000543203

Emre Bulbul, Fahri Yavuz Ilki, Yasin Yitgin, Fatih Ustun, Ali Sezer, Ela Erten, Emine Yitgin, Selahattin Bedir, Kemal Sarica

{"title":"Spinal anesthesia vs general anesthesia in the endoscopic management of proximal ureteral stones: A critical evaluation focusing on the total anesthesia time.","authors":"Emre Bulbul, Fahri Yavuz Ilki, Yasin Yitgin, Fatih Ustun, Ali Sezer, Ela Erten, Emine Yitgin, Selahattin Bedir, Kemal Sarica","doi":"10.1159/000543203","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: This study was aimed to compare spinal and general anesthesia methods in endoscopic management of proximal ureteral stones with a particular emphasis on total anesthesia time.Methods: A total of 246 adult patients undergoing ureteroscopic management for proximal ureteral stones between January 2021 and March 2023 were enrolled. Two different types of anesthesia namely spinal (Group 1, n=109) and general (Group 2, n=137) anesthesia were applied during these procedures.Results: The mean total anesthesia time of Group 1 was statistically significantly shorter than that of Group 2 (61.4±28.7 and 93.7±29.2 min, respectively, p=0.013). While 92.7% of patients in Group 1 were stone free after the interventions, this value was 92 % in Group 2 (p=0.828). There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups regarding peri- (p=0.126) or postoperative (p=0.284) complications.Conclusions: Our results demonstrated well that both spinal and general anesthesia methods could be applied in a successful and safe manner in the endoscopic management of proximal ureteral stones. However, a shorter total anesthesia time under spinal anesthesia could be anticipated during endoscopic management of proximal ureteral stones.","PeriodicalId":23414,"journal":{"name":"Urologia Internationalis","volume":" ","pages":"1-13"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Urologia Internationalis","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000543203","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: This study was aimed to compare spinal and general anesthesia methods in endoscopic management of proximal ureteral stones with a particular emphasis on total anesthesia time.

Methods: A total of 246 adult patients undergoing ureteroscopic management for proximal ureteral stones between January 2021 and March 2023 were enrolled. Two different types of anesthesia namely spinal (Group 1, n=109) and general (Group 2, n=137) anesthesia were applied during these procedures.

Results: The mean total anesthesia time of Group 1 was statistically significantly shorter than that of Group 2 (61.4±28.7 and 93.7±29.2 min, respectively, p=0.013). While 92.7% of patients in Group 1 were stone free after the interventions, this value was 92 % in Group 2 (p=0.828). There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups regarding peri- (p=0.126) or postoperative (p=0.284) complications.

Conclusions: Our results demonstrated well that both spinal and general anesthesia methods could be applied in a successful and safe manner in the endoscopic management of proximal ureteral stones. However, a shorter total anesthesia time under spinal anesthesia could be anticipated during endoscopic management of proximal ureteral stones.

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文去求助

来源期刊

Urologia Internationalis 医学-泌尿学与肾脏学

CiteScore

3.30

自引率

6.20%

发文量

审稿时长

3-8 weeks

期刊介绍： Concise but fully substantiated international reports of clinically oriented research into science and current management of urogenital disorders form the nucleus of original as well as basic research papers. These are supplemented by up-to-date reviews by international experts on the state-of-the-art of key topics of clinical urological practice. Essential topics receiving regular coverage include the introduction of new techniques and instrumentation as well as the evaluation of new functional tests and diagnostic methods. Special attention is given to advances in surgical techniques and clinical oncology. The regular publication of selected case reports represents the great variation in urological disease and illustrates treatment solutions in singular cases.