Efficacy and safety of percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL): a prospective and randomized study comparing regional epidural anesthesia with general anesthesia

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Tangpaitoon,T.
Data de Publicação: 2012
Outros Autores: Nisoog,C., Lojanapiwat,B.
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: International Braz J Urol (Online)
Texto Completo: http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1677-55382012000400010
Resumo: OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of regional epidural anesthesia and general anesthesia in patients who underwent PCNL. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty patients submitted to percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) were randomized into two groups: Group I (N = 26) received general anesthesia and Group II (N = 24) received regional epidural anesthesia. Demographic and operative data including age, BMI, stone position, stone size, postoperative pain, amount of postoperative analgesic usage, length of hospital stay, patient satisfaction, preoperative and postoperative hemoglobin and hematocrit, adverse effects and surgical complications were compared between both groups. RESULTS: Average pain score at 1 hour. was 6.88 in group I and 3.12 in group II (p < 0.001), at 4 hours. 5.07 in group I and 3.42 in group II (p = 0.025). Less morphine was required in the regional epidural anesthesia group compared to the general anesthesia group. Higher satisfaction was found in the regional epidural group. 6 (23.07%) patients in Group I and 1 patient (4.19%) in Group II had postoperative nausea and vomiting, respectively (p = 0.05). Pain score at 12 hours, 24 hours, 48 hours, 72 hours, preoperative and postoperative hemoglobin and hematocrit, length of hospital stay, and adverse effects were no different between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Regional epidural anesthesia is an alternative technique for PCNL which achieves more patient satisfaction, less early postoperative pain and less adverse effects from medication with the same efficacy and safety compared to general anesthesia.
id SBU-1_d2035a20ef169e9bfbb8c85461e8a73d
oai_identifier_str oai:scielo:S1677-55382012000400010
network_acronym_str SBU-1
network_name_str International Braz J Urol (Online)
repository_id_str
spelling Efficacy and safety of percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL): a prospective and randomized study comparing regional epidural anesthesia with general anesthesiaNephrostomy, PercutaneousAnesthesia, GeneralOBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of regional epidural anesthesia and general anesthesia in patients who underwent PCNL. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty patients submitted to percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) were randomized into two groups: Group I (N = 26) received general anesthesia and Group II (N = 24) received regional epidural anesthesia. Demographic and operative data including age, BMI, stone position, stone size, postoperative pain, amount of postoperative analgesic usage, length of hospital stay, patient satisfaction, preoperative and postoperative hemoglobin and hematocrit, adverse effects and surgical complications were compared between both groups. RESULTS: Average pain score at 1 hour. was 6.88 in group I and 3.12 in group II (p < 0.001), at 4 hours. 5.07 in group I and 3.42 in group II (p = 0.025). Less morphine was required in the regional epidural anesthesia group compared to the general anesthesia group. Higher satisfaction was found in the regional epidural group. 6 (23.07%) patients in Group I and 1 patient (4.19%) in Group II had postoperative nausea and vomiting, respectively (p = 0.05). Pain score at 12 hours, 24 hours, 48 hours, 72 hours, preoperative and postoperative hemoglobin and hematocrit, length of hospital stay, and adverse effects were no different between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Regional epidural anesthesia is an alternative technique for PCNL which achieves more patient satisfaction, less early postoperative pain and less adverse effects from medication with the same efficacy and safety compared to general anesthesia.Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia2012-08-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiontext/htmlhttp://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1677-55382012000400010International braz j urol v.38 n.4 2012reponame:International Braz J Urol (Online)instname:Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia (SBU)instacron:SBU10.1590/S1677-55382012000400010info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessTangpaitoon,T.Nisoog,C.Lojanapiwat,B.eng2012-09-20T00:00:00Zoai:scielo:S1677-55382012000400010Revistahttp://www.brazjurol.com.br/ONGhttps://old.scielo.br/oai/scielo-oai.php||brazjurol@brazjurol.com.br1677-61191677-5538opendoar:2012-09-20T00:00International Braz J Urol (Online) - Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia (SBU)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Efficacy and safety of percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL): a prospective and randomized study comparing regional epidural anesthesia with general anesthesia
title Efficacy and safety of percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL): a prospective and randomized study comparing regional epidural anesthesia with general anesthesia
spellingShingle Efficacy and safety of percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL): a prospective and randomized study comparing regional epidural anesthesia with general anesthesia
Tangpaitoon,T.
Nephrostomy, Percutaneous
Anesthesia, General
title_short Efficacy and safety of percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL): a prospective and randomized study comparing regional epidural anesthesia with general anesthesia
title_full Efficacy and safety of percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL): a prospective and randomized study comparing regional epidural anesthesia with general anesthesia
title_fullStr Efficacy and safety of percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL): a prospective and randomized study comparing regional epidural anesthesia with general anesthesia
title_full_unstemmed Efficacy and safety of percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL): a prospective and randomized study comparing regional epidural anesthesia with general anesthesia
title_sort Efficacy and safety of percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL): a prospective and randomized study comparing regional epidural anesthesia with general anesthesia
author Tangpaitoon,T.
author_facet Tangpaitoon,T.
Nisoog,C.
Lojanapiwat,B.
author_role author
author2 Nisoog,C.
Lojanapiwat,B.
author2_role author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Tangpaitoon,T.
Nisoog,C.
Lojanapiwat,B.
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Nephrostomy, Percutaneous
Anesthesia, General
topic Nephrostomy, Percutaneous
Anesthesia, General
description OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of regional epidural anesthesia and general anesthesia in patients who underwent PCNL. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty patients submitted to percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) were randomized into two groups: Group I (N = 26) received general anesthesia and Group II (N = 24) received regional epidural anesthesia. Demographic and operative data including age, BMI, stone position, stone size, postoperative pain, amount of postoperative analgesic usage, length of hospital stay, patient satisfaction, preoperative and postoperative hemoglobin and hematocrit, adverse effects and surgical complications were compared between both groups. RESULTS: Average pain score at 1 hour. was 6.88 in group I and 3.12 in group II (p < 0.001), at 4 hours. 5.07 in group I and 3.42 in group II (p = 0.025). Less morphine was required in the regional epidural anesthesia group compared to the general anesthesia group. Higher satisfaction was found in the regional epidural group. 6 (23.07%) patients in Group I and 1 patient (4.19%) in Group II had postoperative nausea and vomiting, respectively (p = 0.05). Pain score at 12 hours, 24 hours, 48 hours, 72 hours, preoperative and postoperative hemoglobin and hematocrit, length of hospital stay, and adverse effects were no different between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Regional epidural anesthesia is an alternative technique for PCNL which achieves more patient satisfaction, less early postoperative pain and less adverse effects from medication with the same efficacy and safety compared to general anesthesia.
publishDate 2012
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2012-08-01
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1677-55382012000400010
url http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1677-55382012000400010
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv 10.1590/S1677-55382012000400010
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv text/html
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv International braz j urol v.38 n.4 2012
reponame:International Braz J Urol (Online)
instname:Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia (SBU)
instacron:SBU
instname_str Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia (SBU)
instacron_str SBU
institution SBU
reponame_str International Braz J Urol (Online)
collection International Braz J Urol (Online)
repository.name.fl_str_mv International Braz J Urol (Online) - Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia (SBU)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv ||brazjurol@brazjurol.com.br
_version_ 1750318072789467136