Flexible ureterorenoscopy and laser lithotripsy with regional anesthesia vs general anesthesia: A prospective randomized study

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Sahan,Murat
Data de Publicação: 2020
Outros Autores: Sarilar,Omer, Akbulut,Mehmet Fatih, Demir,Eren, Savun,Metin, Sen,Oznur, Ozgor,Faruk
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=S1677-55382020000601010
Resumo: ABSTRACT Purpose To compare the effect of general anesthesia (GA) and regional anesthesia (RA) on f-URS outcomes and surgeon comfort. Material and Methods The study was conducted between June 2017 to January 2018 and data collection was applied in a prospective, randomized fashion. 120 patients participated in the study and were divided into RA group (n=56) and GA group (n=64). Demographic, operative and post-operative parameters of patients were analysed. The end point of this study was the effect of two anesthesia regimens on the comfort of the surgeon, and the comparability of feasibility and safety against perioperative complications. Results The study including 120 randomized patients, 14 patients were excluded from the study and completed with 106 patients (45 in RA group and 61 in GA group). No difference was detected between the two groups in terms of preoperative data. During the monitorization of operative vital signs, 3 patients in RA group experienced bradycardia, and this finding was significant when compared with GA group (p=0.041). Additionally, 2 patients in RA group experienced mucosal tears and 1 patient experienced hemorrhage during the operation, but no complications were observed in the GA group (p=0.041). Postoperative surgeon comfort evaluation revealed statistically significant results in favor of GA group (p=0.001). Conclusions Both GA and RA are equally effective and safe anesthesia methods for f-URS procedures. However, RA group showed significantly increased likelihood of bradycardia and mucosal injury during surgery, and significantly decreased surgeon comfort during surgery.
id SBU-1_c8decf73741ecc424de77ebc6600d275
oai_identifier_str oai:scielo:S1677-55382020000601010
network_acronym_str SBU-1
network_name_str International Braz J Urol (Online)
repository_id_str
spelling Flexible ureterorenoscopy and laser lithotripsy with regional anesthesia vs general anesthesia: A prospective randomized studyLithotripsy, LaserAnesthesia, GeneralUrolithiasisABSTRACT Purpose To compare the effect of general anesthesia (GA) and regional anesthesia (RA) on f-URS outcomes and surgeon comfort. Material and Methods The study was conducted between June 2017 to January 2018 and data collection was applied in a prospective, randomized fashion. 120 patients participated in the study and were divided into RA group (n=56) and GA group (n=64). Demographic, operative and post-operative parameters of patients were analysed. The end point of this study was the effect of two anesthesia regimens on the comfort of the surgeon, and the comparability of feasibility and safety against perioperative complications. Results The study including 120 randomized patients, 14 patients were excluded from the study and completed with 106 patients (45 in RA group and 61 in GA group). No difference was detected between the two groups in terms of preoperative data. During the monitorization of operative vital signs, 3 patients in RA group experienced bradycardia, and this finding was significant when compared with GA group (p=0.041). Additionally, 2 patients in RA group experienced mucosal tears and 1 patient experienced hemorrhage during the operation, but no complications were observed in the GA group (p=0.041). Postoperative surgeon comfort evaluation revealed statistically significant results in favor of GA group (p=0.001). Conclusions Both GA and RA are equally effective and safe anesthesia methods for f-URS procedures. However, RA group showed significantly increased likelihood of bradycardia and mucosal injury during surgery, and significantly decreased surgeon comfort during surgery.Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia2020-12-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiontext/htmlhttp://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1677-55382020000601010International braz j urol v.46 n.6 2020reponame:International Braz J Urol (Online)instname:Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia (SBU)instacron:SBU10.1590/s1677-5538.ibju.2019.0770info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessSahan,MuratSarilar,OmerAkbulut,Mehmet FatihDemir,ErenSavun,MetinSen,OznurOzgor,Farukeng2020-09-08T00:00:00Zoai:scielo:S1677-55382020000601010Revistahttp://www.brazjurol.com.br/ONGhttps://old.scielo.br/oai/scielo-oai.php||brazjurol@brazjurol.com.br1677-61191677-5538opendoar:2020-09-08T00:00International Braz J Urol (Online) - Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia (SBU)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Flexible ureterorenoscopy and laser lithotripsy with regional anesthesia vs general anesthesia: A prospective randomized study
title Flexible ureterorenoscopy and laser lithotripsy with regional anesthesia vs general anesthesia: A prospective randomized study
spellingShingle Flexible ureterorenoscopy and laser lithotripsy with regional anesthesia vs general anesthesia: A prospective randomized study
Sahan,Murat
Lithotripsy, Laser
Anesthesia, General
Urolithiasis
title_short Flexible ureterorenoscopy and laser lithotripsy with regional anesthesia vs general anesthesia: A prospective randomized study
title_full Flexible ureterorenoscopy and laser lithotripsy with regional anesthesia vs general anesthesia: A prospective randomized study
title_fullStr Flexible ureterorenoscopy and laser lithotripsy with regional anesthesia vs general anesthesia: A prospective randomized study
title_full_unstemmed Flexible ureterorenoscopy and laser lithotripsy with regional anesthesia vs general anesthesia: A prospective randomized study
title_sort Flexible ureterorenoscopy and laser lithotripsy with regional anesthesia vs general anesthesia: A prospective randomized study
author Sahan,Murat
author_facet Sahan,Murat
Sarilar,Omer
Akbulut,Mehmet Fatih
Demir,Eren
Savun,Metin
Sen,Oznur
Ozgor,Faruk
author_role author
author2 Sarilar,Omer
Akbulut,Mehmet Fatih
Demir,Eren
Savun,Metin
Sen,Oznur
Ozgor,Faruk
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Sahan,Murat
Sarilar,Omer
Akbulut,Mehmet Fatih
Demir,Eren
Savun,Metin
Sen,Oznur
Ozgor,Faruk
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Lithotripsy, Laser
Anesthesia, General
Urolithiasis
topic Lithotripsy, Laser
Anesthesia, General
Urolithiasis
description ABSTRACT Purpose To compare the effect of general anesthesia (GA) and regional anesthesia (RA) on f-URS outcomes and surgeon comfort. Material and Methods The study was conducted between June 2017 to January 2018 and data collection was applied in a prospective, randomized fashion. 120 patients participated in the study and were divided into RA group (n=56) and GA group (n=64). Demographic, operative and post-operative parameters of patients were analysed. The end point of this study was the effect of two anesthesia regimens on the comfort of the surgeon, and the comparability of feasibility and safety against perioperative complications. Results The study including 120 randomized patients, 14 patients were excluded from the study and completed with 106 patients (45 in RA group and 61 in GA group). No difference was detected between the two groups in terms of preoperative data. During the monitorization of operative vital signs, 3 patients in RA group experienced bradycardia, and this finding was significant when compared with GA group (p=0.041). Additionally, 2 patients in RA group experienced mucosal tears and 1 patient experienced hemorrhage during the operation, but no complications were observed in the GA group (p=0.041). Postoperative surgeon comfort evaluation revealed statistically significant results in favor of GA group (p=0.001). Conclusions Both GA and RA are equally effective and safe anesthesia methods for f-URS procedures. However, RA group showed significantly increased likelihood of bradycardia and mucosal injury during surgery, and significantly decreased surgeon comfort during surgery.
publishDate 2020
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2020-12-01
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=S1677-55382020000601010
url http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1677-55382020000601010
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv 10.1590/s1677-5538.ibju.2019.0770
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.46 n.6 2020
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_ 1750318077671636992