Is spinal anesthesia an alternative and feasible method for proximal ureteral stone treatment?

Comparing spinal anesthesia approaches for transurethral lithotripsy in patients with proximal ureteral stones: A randomized clinical trial of bupivacaine alone versus bupivacaine with fentanyl

Despite the benefits of spinal anesthesia and the preference of anesthesiologists for this technique, it is less accepted by urologists due to the proximity of the stone place in the ureter and the possibility of pain, restlessness, and occasional movements of the patient during surgery. The current study investigated the success of bupivacaine plus intrathecal fentanyl in patients undergoing transurethral lithotripsy (TUL). In this randomized clinical trial, from April 2021 to September 2021, 54 patients with proximal urolithiasis candidates for TUL were enrolled. Patients were randomly categorized into two groups: group A received bupivacaine 10 mg and 0.5 ml of normal saline, while group B received bupivacaine 10 mg with 0.5 ml (25µg) of intrathecal fentanyl. According to our findings, about 74% of the patients were men, and the mean age of the patients was 66.14±22.46 years. The onset time of the sensory block, sensory block level, pain score, degree of relaxation, depth of the motor block, occurrence of anesthesia complications, oxygen saturation, and mean arterial blood pressure were not significantly different between the two groups. However, the duration of the motor block in group B was longer than in group A (p<0.001). Also, retropulsion was observed only in five patients (18.5%) in group A, significantly higher than in group B (p=0.019). Bupivacaine with fentanyl 25µg provided adequate spinal anesthesia with lower retropulsion in patients with urolithiasis who are candidates for TUL.

Outcomes of Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery Performed Under Neuraxial vs. General Anesthesia: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

The current review aimed to assess if the outcomes of retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) differ with neuraxial anesthesia (NA) or general anesthesia (GA).

Methods

The databases of PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, ScienceDirect, and Google Scholar were searched up to 3rd December 2021 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing outcomes of RIRS with NA or GA.

Results

Thirteen studies involving 2912 patients were included. Eight were RCTs while remaining were observational studies. Meta-analysis revealed that stone free status after RIRS did not differ with NA or GA (OR: 0.99 95% CI: 0.77, 1.26 I2 = 10% p = 0.91). Similarly, there was no difference in operation time (MD: -0.35 95% CI: -4.04, 3.34 I2 = 89% p = 0.85), 24 h pain scores (MD: -0.36 95% CI: -0.96, 0.23 I2 = 95% p = 0.23), length of hospital stay (MD: 0.01 95% CI: -0.06, 0.08 I2 = 35% p = 0.78), Clavien-Dindo grade I (OR: 0.74 95% CI: 0.52, 1.06 I2 = 13% p = 0.10), grade II (OR: 0.70 95% CI: 0.45, 1.07 I2 = 0% p = 0.10) and grade III/IV complication rates (OR: 0.78 95% CI: 0.45, 1.35 I2 = 0% p = 0.37) between NA and GA. Except for grade I complications, the results did not change on subgroup analysis based on study type and NA type.

Conclusion

Our results suggest that NA can be an alternative to GA for RIRS. There seem to be no difference in the stone-free rates, operation time, 24-h pain scores, complication rates, and length of hospital stay between NA and GA for RIRS. Considering the economic benefits, the use of NA may be preferred over GA while taking into account patient willingness, baseline patient characteristics, and stone burden.

Systematic Review Registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier: CRD42021295407.