Araştırma Makalesi
BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

Spinal Anestezi ve Genel Anestezi Altında Uygulanan Perkütan Nefrolitotomi Operasyonlarının Karşılaştırılması

Yıl 2024, Cilt: 46 Sayı: 4, 545 - 550, 16.07.2024
https://doi.org/10.20515/otd.1456556

Öz

Bu çalışma, perkütan nefrolitotomide (PNL) spinal ve genel anestezinin sonuçlar üzerindeki etkilerini karşılaştırmayı amaçlamaktadır. Kliniğimizde 2012-2017 yılları arasında gerçekleştirilen Perkütan nefrolitotomi gerçekleştirilen 200 hastanın (100 spinal,100 genel) ortanca yaşı 45,00±22,00 ve ortanca taş boyutu 568,50±673,75 mm2 idi. PNL, 90 hastada sağ böbreğe, 110 hastada sol böbreğe uygulandı. Olguların %97,5’inde tek ve subkostal giriş gerçekleştirildi. Ortanca operasyon süresi 45,00±35,00 dakika, ortanca hastanede kalış süresi 4,00±2,00 gün ve ortanca nefrostomi kateter süresi 3,00±3,00 gün olarak saptandı. Hastaların tamamında pron pozisyonunda ve floroskopi eşliğinde gerçekleştirilen PNL operasyonları sonrası %73 taşsızlık sağlandı. Olguların %82’sinde herhangi bir sorun gözlenmezken; %9’unda operasyon sonrası yüksek ateş, %5,5’inde transfüzyon gerektiren kanama ve %3,5’inde double j kateterizasyon gerektiren uzamış drenaj gelişti. Spinal ve genel anestezi ile opere edilen olgulara ait bulgular karşılaştırıldığında; cinsiyet, taraf, giriş lokalizasyonu ve taş boyutu açısından farklılık saptanmazken, yaş (p=0,0153), taş lokalizasyonu (p<0,0001), operasyon süresi (p<0,0001), hastanede yatış süresi (p<0,0001), nefrostomi kateter süresi (p<0,0001), taşsızlık oranı (p=0,0021) ve komplikasyon oranları (p=0,0155) açısından istatistiksel anlamlı farklılık olduğu saptandı. Perkütan nefrolitotomide sıklıkla genel anestezi uygulanmakla beraber, çalışmamızda elde ettiğimiz bulgular spinal anestezinin taş boyutundan bağımsız olarak daha yüksek taşsızlık oranları ve daha az komplikasyon ile uygulanabileceğini göstermektedir. Spinal anestezi ile PNL, özellikle genel anestezi açısından yüksek riskli hastalarda güvenle ve başarı ile uygulanabilir. Bu konuda yüksek volümlü ve prospektif çalışmalara gereksinim vardır.

Kaynakça

  • 1. Fernstrom I, Johansson B: Percutaneous pyelolithotomy. A new extraction technique. Scand J Urol Nephrol 1976; 10: 257–259.
  • 2. Mehrabi S, Karimzadeh Shirazi K. Results and complications of spinal anesthesia in percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Urol J. 2010;7:22-5.
  • 3. Aravantinos E, Karatzas A, Gravas S, Tzortzis V, Melekos M. Feasibility of percutaneous nephrolithotomy under assisted local anaesthesia: a prospective study on selected patients with upper urinary tract obstruction. Eur Urol. 2007;51:224-7; discussion 8.
  • 4. Jun-Ou J, Lojanapiwat B. Supracostal access: does it affect tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy efficacy and safety? Int Braz J Urol 2010;36:171-6.
  • 5. Kuzgunbay B, Turunc T, Akin S, Ergenoglu P, Aribogan A, Ozkardes H: Percutaneous nephrolithotomy under general versus combined spinal-epidural anesthesia. J Endourol 2009; 23: 1835–1838.
  • 6. Karacalar S, Bilen CY, Sarihasan B, Sarikaya S: Spinal-epidural anesthesia versus general anesthesia in the management of percutaneous nephrolithotripsy. J Endourol 2009; 23: 1591–1597.
  • 7. Ballestrazzi V, Zboralski C, Smith-Morel P, Boullet M, Willot I, Hochart D, Scherpereel P.( Importance of Suspended Peridural Anesthesia in Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy. Apropos of 112 patients in the urology service of the Regional Hospital Center of Lille) Cah Anesthesiol 1988;36:85-88
  • 8. Mehrabi S, Mousavi Zadeh A, Akbartabar Toori M, Mehrabi F. General versus spinal anesthesia in percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Urol J 2013;10:756‑61.
  • 9. Karacalar S, Bilen CY, Sarihasan B, Sarikaya S. Spinal-epidural anesthesia versus general anesthesia in the management of percutaneous nephrolithotripsy. J Endourol. 2009;23:1591- 7
  • 10. Cicek T, Gonulalan U, Dogan R, et al. Spinal anesthesia is an efficient and safe anesthetic method for percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Urology. 2014;83:50-5.
  • 11. Solakhan M, Bulut E, Erturhan MS. Comparison of Two Different Anesthesia Methods in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy. Urology Journal, 2019; 16. 3-246-250.
  • 12. Buldu I, Tepeler A, Kaynar M, Karatag T, Tosun M, Umutogluv T, Tanriover H, Istanbulluoglu O. Comparison of Anesthesia Methods in Treatment of Staghorn Kidney Stones with Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy. Urol J. 2016 Mar 5;13(1):2479-83.
  • 13. Liu X, Huang G, Zhong R, Hu S, Deng R. Comparison of Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy Under Regional versus General Anesthesia: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Urol Int. 2018;101(2):132-142.

Comparison of Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy Operations Under Spinal Versus General Anesthesia

Yıl 2024, Cilt: 46 Sayı: 4, 545 - 550, 16.07.2024
https://doi.org/10.20515/otd.1456556

Öz

This study evaluates the impact of spinal versus general anesthesia on outcomes in percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PNL). We analyzed 200 patients (100 spinal, 100 general) who underwent PNL in our clinic from 2012 to 2017. The median age was 45.00±22.00 years, and the median stone size was 568.50±673.75 mm². PNL was performed on the right kidney in 90 patients and the left kidney in 110 patients, with a single subcostal entry in 97.5% of cases. The median operation time was 45.00±35.00 minutes, the median hospital stay was 4.00±2.00 days, and the median nephrostomy catheter duration was 3.00±3.00 days. A 73% stone-free rate was achieved after PNL operations performed in the prone position under fluoroscopy guidance. While 82% of the cases had no complications, 9% experienced high fever, 5.5% required blood transfusion due to bleeding, and 3.5% developed prolonged drainage requiring double J catheterization.In comparing the spinal and general anesthesia groups, there were no differences in gender, side, entry location, or stone size. However, significant differences were found in age (p=0.0153), stone location (p<0.0001), operation time (p<0.0001), hospital stay (p<0.0001), nephrostomy catheter duration (p<0.0001), stone-free rate (p=0.0021), and complication rates (p=0.0155). Despite the common use of general anesthesia in PNL, our findings indicate that spinal anesthesia may yield higher stone-free rates and fewer complications, irrespective of stone size. Therefore, PNL under spinal anesthesia can be safely and effectively performed, particularly in patients at high risk for general anesthesia. Further high-volume and prospective studies are warranted.

Kaynakça

  • 1. Fernstrom I, Johansson B: Percutaneous pyelolithotomy. A new extraction technique. Scand J Urol Nephrol 1976; 10: 257–259.
  • 2. Mehrabi S, Karimzadeh Shirazi K. Results and complications of spinal anesthesia in percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Urol J. 2010;7:22-5.
  • 3. Aravantinos E, Karatzas A, Gravas S, Tzortzis V, Melekos M. Feasibility of percutaneous nephrolithotomy under assisted local anaesthesia: a prospective study on selected patients with upper urinary tract obstruction. Eur Urol. 2007;51:224-7; discussion 8.
  • 4. Jun-Ou J, Lojanapiwat B. Supracostal access: does it affect tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy efficacy and safety? Int Braz J Urol 2010;36:171-6.
  • 5. Kuzgunbay B, Turunc T, Akin S, Ergenoglu P, Aribogan A, Ozkardes H: Percutaneous nephrolithotomy under general versus combined spinal-epidural anesthesia. J Endourol 2009; 23: 1835–1838.
  • 6. Karacalar S, Bilen CY, Sarihasan B, Sarikaya S: Spinal-epidural anesthesia versus general anesthesia in the management of percutaneous nephrolithotripsy. J Endourol 2009; 23: 1591–1597.
  • 7. Ballestrazzi V, Zboralski C, Smith-Morel P, Boullet M, Willot I, Hochart D, Scherpereel P.( Importance of Suspended Peridural Anesthesia in Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy. Apropos of 112 patients in the urology service of the Regional Hospital Center of Lille) Cah Anesthesiol 1988;36:85-88
  • 8. Mehrabi S, Mousavi Zadeh A, Akbartabar Toori M, Mehrabi F. General versus spinal anesthesia in percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Urol J 2013;10:756‑61.
  • 9. Karacalar S, Bilen CY, Sarihasan B, Sarikaya S. Spinal-epidural anesthesia versus general anesthesia in the management of percutaneous nephrolithotripsy. J Endourol. 2009;23:1591- 7
  • 10. Cicek T, Gonulalan U, Dogan R, et al. Spinal anesthesia is an efficient and safe anesthetic method for percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Urology. 2014;83:50-5.
  • 11. Solakhan M, Bulut E, Erturhan MS. Comparison of Two Different Anesthesia Methods in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy. Urology Journal, 2019; 16. 3-246-250.
  • 12. Buldu I, Tepeler A, Kaynar M, Karatag T, Tosun M, Umutogluv T, Tanriover H, Istanbulluoglu O. Comparison of Anesthesia Methods in Treatment of Staghorn Kidney Stones with Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy. Urol J. 2016 Mar 5;13(1):2479-83.
  • 13. Liu X, Huang G, Zhong R, Hu S, Deng R. Comparison of Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy Under Regional versus General Anesthesia: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Urol Int. 2018;101(2):132-142.
Toplam 13 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil Türkçe
Konular Üroloji
Bölüm ORİJİNAL MAKALELER / ORIGINAL ARTICLES
Yazarlar

Ugur Yucetas 0000-0002-1133-305X

Hüseyin Aytaç Ateş 0000-0001-8908-4324

Ali Ferruh Akay 0000-0003-0389-9472

Emre Karabay 0000-0003-1654-8524

Mustafa Kadıhasanoglu 0000-0001-5109-5319

Erkan Erkan 0000-0001-8000-8499

Yayımlanma Tarihi 16 Temmuz 2024
Gönderilme Tarihi 25 Mart 2024
Kabul Tarihi 28 Mayıs 2024
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2024 Cilt: 46 Sayı: 4

Kaynak Göster

Vancouver Yucetas U, Ateş HA, Akay AF, Karabay E, Kadıhasanoglu M, Erkan E. Spinal Anestezi ve Genel Anestezi Altında Uygulanan Perkütan Nefrolitotomi Operasyonlarının Karşılaştırılması. Osmangazi Tıp Dergisi. 2024;46(4):545-50.


13299        13308       13306       13305    13307  1330126978