Home > Journals > Minerva Urology and Nephrology > Past Issues > Minerva Urologica e Nefrologica 2019 December;71(6) > Minerva Urologica e Nefrologica 2019 December;71(6):636-43



Publishing options
To subscribe
Submit an article
Recommend to your librarian


Publication history
Cite this article as


ORIGINAL ARTICLE   Free accessfree

Minerva Urologica e Nefrologica 2019 December;71(6):636-43

DOI: 10.23736/S0393-2249.19.03481-7


language: English

Comparison of general anesthesia and combined spinal-epidural anesthesia for retrograde intrarenal surgery

Mehmet Ç. ÇAKICI 1 , Hakkı U. ÖZOK 2, Demet EROL 3, Sibel ÇATALCA 3, Sercan SARI 4, Harun ÖZDEMİR 5, Volkan SELMİ 4, İbrahim G. KARTAL 6, Nihat KARAKOYUNLU 6

1 Department of Urology, Istanbul Medeniyet University Goztepe Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey; 2 Department of Urology, Karabuk University Faculty of Medicine, Karabuk, Turkey; 3 Department of Anesthesiology and Reanimation, Diskapi Yildirim Beyazit Education and Research Hospital, Health Sciences University, Ankara, Turkey; 4 Department of Urology, Bozok University Faculty of Medicine, Yozgat, Turkey; 5 Department of Urology, Avcılar State Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey; 6 Department of Urology, Health Sciences University, Diskapi Yildirim Beyazit Education and Research Hospital, Ankara, Turkey

BACKGROUND: To investigate the applicability of the combined spinal-epidural anesthesia (CSEA) method in RIRS for the treatment of kidney stone disease and also to compare with general anesthesia (GA) in terms of their effects on early postoperative pain levels and their cost.
METHODS: A hundred consecutive patients who were scheduled for RIRS were enrolled in this study and were prospectively evaluated according to the anesthesia methods. Patients were divided into 2 groups randomly: the GA (N.=50) and CSEA (N.=50) groups. Five patients were excluded due to patient incompatibility or inadequate anesthesia. The pain levels of patients in the Group 2 were recorded during the operation using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) at minutes 1, 5, 10, 15, 30 and 60. Peak pain levels within the first 24 hours following the operation were recorded for both groups.
RESULTS: Ninety five patients in the two groups were determined to be similar in terms of demographic characteristics. The mean VAS score at the postoperative 1st day was found as 1.20±0.9 for Group 1 and 0.82±1.3 for Group 2. No statistically significant differences were identified between the VAS-nram and VAS-ram groups (P=0.450). The total cost of anesthesia medications was similar between the both groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Combined spinal-epidural anesthesia, which produces favorable outcomes in the intraoperative and postoperative periods, will become an alternative to general anesthesia. Also, the costs associated with these two anesthesia methods were calculated, it was found that the total cost of anesthesia medications and materials per operation was similar both methods.

KEY WORDS: Anesthesia, spinal; Anesthesia, epidural; Anesthesia, general; Pain

top of page