Retrograde intrarenal surgery with combined spinal-epidural vs general anesthesia: a prospective randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: Retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) involves a minimally invasive stone surgery, lending itself potential to combined spinal-epidural anesthesia (CSEA), although it is performed preferably under general anesthesia (GA). This prospective randomized study was undertaken to evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of CSEA for patients undergoing RIRS. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Seventy consecutive patients who were scheduled for RIRS were randomized to receive CSEA (n=35) or GA (n=35). Operative time, stone clearance rate, visual analog scale (VAS) of pain, complication rate, anesthetic cost, and hospital stay were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: A total of 65 patients randomized to CSEA (31) or GA (34) completed the study. In the CSEA group, each procedure was completed and there was no anesthetic conversion. Although based on the prospective randomized method, the GA group still had a little larger stone size (p=0.059) and more multiple caliceal stones (p=0.037). Overall, there were no statistically significant differences in operative time (p=0.088), stone fragmentation time (p=0.074), postoperative VAS pain score at 6 and 24 hours (p=0.156, 0.146), incidence of complications (p=0.870), stone-free rate (p=0.804), and hospital stays (p=0.907) between the two groups. The patients in the GA group experienced a higher mean hemoglobin drop (6.5±3.2 vs 8.6±2.7 g/L, p=0.012). In addition, the anesthetic cost was much cheaper in the CSEA group (183.8±31.4 vs 391.9±59.1 dollars, p<0.001). CONCLUSION: RIRS with CSEA can be completed with no anesthetic conversions and with the same efficacy and safety compared with GA. When considering economical aspects, CSEA appears to be a preferable alternative to GA for the patient whose general health status permits it.

[The relationship between mouth pressure or tracheal pressure and esophagus pressure and diaphragmatic pressure].

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the relationship between mouth pressure (Pmo) or tracheal pressure (Ptr) and esophagus pressure (Pes) or transdiaphragmatic pressure. METHODS: Seventeen patients were involved in the study. Maximal inspiratory pressure (MIP), maximal transdiaphragmatic pressure (Pdi(max)), maximal esophagus pressure (Pes(max)), twitch mouth pressure (TwPmo), twitch transdiaphragmatic pressure (TwPdi) and twitch esophagus pressure (TwPes) were measured before narcotization as a normal procedure for the abdominal operation and twitch tracheal pressure (TwPtr(nar)), twitch esophagus pressure (TwPes(nar)) and twitch transdiaphragmatic pressure (TwPdi(nar)) were dynamically monitored during narcotization. RESULTS: (1) The correlation coefficient (r) values between Pdi(max) and MIP, TwPdi and TwPmo, TwPdi(nar) and TwPtr(nar), Pes(max) and MIP, TwPes and TwPmo, TwPes(nar) and TwPtr(nar) were 0.976 +/- 0.030, 0.816 +/- 0.155, 0.923 +/- 0.446, 0.981 +/- 0.185, 0.829 +/- 0.168 and 0.955 +/- 0.292, respectively. (2) The coefficient variation (CV) of MIP, Pes(max), Pdi(max), TwPmo, TwPes and TwPdi were (14.2 +/- 4.7)%, (15.2 +/- 4.3)%, (15.5 +/- 4.1)%, (30.4 +/- 15.9)%, (10.8 +/- 5.1)% and (9.9 +/- 4.0)%, respectively. The CV of TwPmo was the highest (compare with others, all P < 0.05) and that of TwPes and TwPdi was the lowest (compare with others, all P < 0.05). There was no significant difference among MIP, Pes(max) and Pdi(max) (P > 0.05). (3) The r value between the changing values of TwPtr(nar) and TwPdi(nar) or TwPes(nar) during narcotization were 0.839 or 0.894 (P = 0.000, respectively). CONCLUSION: The measurement of MIP and TwPmo should be repeated and the highest value should be chosen in order to reduce the possibility of underestimating the function of diaphragm, which could be dynamically monitored by TwPtr(nar).