A randomized study comparing the efficacy and safety of epidural anesthesia versus general anesthesia in patients undergoing percutaneous nephrolithotomy

Tanuj Kumawat, Varsha Kothari, S. Priyadarshi, Tuhin Mistry, S. Morwal
{"title":"A randomized study comparing the efficacy and safety of epidural anesthesia versus general anesthesia in patients undergoing percutaneous nephrolithotomy","authors":"Tanuj Kumawat, Varsha Kothari, S. Priyadarshi, Tuhin Mistry, S. Morwal","doi":"10.4103/1687-7934.189568","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) is the preferred surgical technique for large renal stones (>2 cm in diameter), which involves keyhole surgery through a 1 cm incision on the skin overlying the kidney. It can be performed under local, regional, as well as general anesthesia (GA). We have compared the efficacy and safety of regional epidural anesthesia (EA) and GA in patients undergoing PCNL. Patients and methods In this prospective study, a total of 112 patients of American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I and II undergoing PCNL were randomized into two groups. Patients in group A (n=56) received regional EA (with lignocaine and bupivacaine), and group B (n=56) patients received standard GA. The postoperative visual analog scale (VAS) score, amount of postoperative analgesic use, adverse effects, operative time, and blood loss were evaluated and compared between the two groups. Results The mean VAS score at 1 h was 1.25 in group A and 5.21 in group B (P<0.001), at 3 h it was 3.05 in group A and 5.04 in group B (P<0.001), and at 6 h it was 3.04 in group A and 4.79 in group B (P<0.001). Less analgesia was required in the EA group compared with the GA group (P<0.001). Five (8.92%) patients in group A and 21 (37.50%) patients in group B had postoperative nausea (P<0.05). Pain score at 18 and 24 h, operative time, postoperative hemoglobin level, and adverse effects were not significantly different between the two groups. Conclusion EA is a good alternative anesthetic technique for PCNL with less analgesic consumption and fewer complications as compared to GA.","PeriodicalId":7492,"journal":{"name":"Ain-Shams Journal of Anaesthesiology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ain-Shams Journal of Anaesthesiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/1687-7934.189568","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Background Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) is the preferred surgical technique for large renal stones (>2 cm in diameter), which involves keyhole surgery through a 1 cm incision on the skin overlying the kidney. It can be performed under local, regional, as well as general anesthesia (GA). We have compared the efficacy and safety of regional epidural anesthesia (EA) and GA in patients undergoing PCNL. Patients and methods In this prospective study, a total of 112 patients of American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I and II undergoing PCNL were randomized into two groups. Patients in group A (n=56) received regional EA (with lignocaine and bupivacaine), and group B (n=56) patients received standard GA. The postoperative visual analog scale (VAS) score, amount of postoperative analgesic use, adverse effects, operative time, and blood loss were evaluated and compared between the two groups. Results The mean VAS score at 1 h was 1.25 in group A and 5.21 in group B (P<0.001), at 3 h it was 3.05 in group A and 5.04 in group B (P<0.001), and at 6 h it was 3.04 in group A and 4.79 in group B (P<0.001). Less analgesia was required in the EA group compared with the GA group (P<0.001). Five (8.92%) patients in group A and 21 (37.50%) patients in group B had postoperative nausea (P<0.05). Pain score at 18 and 24 h, operative time, postoperative hemoglobin level, and adverse effects were not significantly different between the two groups. Conclusion EA is a good alternative anesthetic technique for PCNL with less analgesic consumption and fewer complications as compared to GA.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
一项比较硬膜外麻醉与全身麻醉在经皮肾镜取石术患者中的疗效和安全性的随机研究
背景:经皮肾镜取石术(PCNL)是治疗大肾结石(直径> 2cm)的首选手术技术,它需要在肾上皮肤上开一个1cm的锁孔手术。它可以在局部、区域和全身麻醉(GA)下进行。我们比较了局部硬膜外麻醉(EA)和局部硬膜外麻醉(GA)在PCNL患者中的疗效和安全性。患者与方法在本前瞻性研究中,将112例美国麻醉医师学会物理状态I和II的PCNL患者随机分为两组。A组(n=56)患者接受局部EA(联合利多卡因和布比卡因),B组(n=56)患者接受标准GA。比较两组患者术后视觉模拟评分(VAS)、术后镇痛药用量、不良反应、手术时间、出血量。结果A组患者1 h VAS平均评分为1.25,B组评分为5.21 (P<0.001); A组患者3 h VAS平均评分为3.05,B组评分为5.04 (P<0.001); A组患者6 h VAS平均评分为3.04,B组评分为4.79 (P<0.001)。与GA组相比,EA组需要较少的镇痛(P<0.001)。A组术后恶心发生率为5例(8.92%),B组为21例(37.50%)(P<0.05)。两组患者18、24 h疼痛评分、手术时间、术后血红蛋白水平、不良反应等差异无统计学意义。结论与GA相比,EA是一种较好的PCNL替代麻醉技术,镇痛消耗少,并发症少。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Management of early postoperative hypoxemia: a comparative performance of Hudson face mask with nasal prongs Aprepitant for attenuation of postoperative nausea and vomiting with a decrease in postoperative analgesic needs after laparoscopic surgery Awake orotracheal intubation using fiberoptic bronchoscope versus Airtraq laryngoscope in morbidly obese patients Tramadol versus hyoscine-N-butylbromide as intrapartum analgesics during the first stage of labor Effect of dexmedetomidine infusion on desflurane requirement and perioperative hemodynamic changes during laparoscopic gastric sleeve operations: a study based on entropy
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1