Do Anesthesia Methods in Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery Make Difference Regarding the Success of Ureteral Access and Surgical Outcomes?

Basit Öğe Kaydı
dc.contributor.authorÖztekin, Ünal
dc.contributor.authorCaniklioğlu, Mehmet
dc.contributor.authorSelmi, Volkan
dc.contributor.authorKantekin, Çiğdem Ünal
dc.contributor.authorAtaç, Fatih
dc.contributor.authorGürel, Abdullah
dc.contributor.authorSarı, Sercan
dc.date.accessioned2021-01-14T18:10:55Z
dc.date.available2021-01-14T18:10:55Z
dc.date.issued2020
dc.departmentKKÜ
dc.descriptionCaniklioglu, Mehmet/0000-0003-2216-5677; OZTEKIN, UNAL/0000-0001-9568-9442; selmi, volkan/0000-0003-2605-9935
dc.description.abstractBackground: Retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) is a safe and minimally invasive method for the endoscopic treatment of upper urinary system stones especially sized <2 cm. Ureteral entrance is an important stage of RIRS. General anesthesia (GA) is usually used for RIRS. There is not enough data about the effect of anesthesia methods on the success of ureteral entrance and RIRS. We aimed to evaluate the effects of anesthesia methods (spinal anesthesia [SA], epidural anesthesia [EA], and GA) on the ureteral access and RIRS outcomes in primary surgery. Methods: After local ethical approval, 105 patients were prospectively randomized into three groups according to the anesthesia methods. GA, SA, and EA were defined as Group 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Results: Stone density was statistically significantly different between three groups (P = .008). Lithotripsy and operation time were significantly lower in Group 3 (P = .001). Dilatation and stone access time were significantly lower in Group 1. There was no statistically significant difference for scopy time, success, Visual Analog Scale score at 8th and 24th hours, and intraoperative and postoperative complications. Conclusions: GA may be recommended to decrease manipulations for the success of first ureteral access and time to reach the stone if there is not any contraindication.en_US
dc.identifier.citationclosedAccessen_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1089/lap.2019.0548
dc.identifier.endpage277en_US
dc.identifier.issn1092-6429
dc.identifier.issn1557-9034
dc.identifier.issue3en_US
dc.identifier.pmid31905041
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85081945604
dc.identifier.scopusqualityQ2
dc.identifier.startpage273en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1089/lap.2019.0548
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12587/12824
dc.identifier.volume30en_US
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000505946200001
dc.identifier.wosqualityQ3
dc.indekslendigikaynakWeb of Science
dc.indekslendigikaynakScopus
dc.indekslendigikaynakPubMed
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherMARY ANN LIEBERT, INCen_US
dc.relation.ispartofJOURNAL OF LAPAROENDOSCOPIC & ADVANCED SURGICAL TECHNIQUES
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessen_US
dc.subjectanesthesia methodsen_US
dc.subjectRIRSen_US
dc.subjectsurgical outcomesen_US
dc.subjectureteral accessen_US
dc.titleDo Anesthesia Methods in Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery Make Difference Regarding the Success of Ureteral Access and Surgical Outcomes?en_US
dc.typeArticle

Dosyalar

Koleksiyon

WOS İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu
Makale Koleksiyonu
PubMed İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu
Scopus İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu