Retrospective analysis of Two Different Anesthetic Methods in Percutaneous Nephrolithotripsy

Objective: The data of the patients undergoing percutaneous nephrolithotomy under either regional or general anesthesia at our hospital were compared retrospectively in this study. Material and Methods: Demographic characteristics, mean hemoglobin decline, transfusion and ephedrine requirements, duration of surgery and anesthesia, length of hospital stay, and postoperative analgesic requirements were compared by examination of archive records. Results: 160 patients were divided into two groups according to the applied anesthesia method as Regional and General Anesthesia Group. There was no statistically significant difference between the groups regarding demographic data of the patients. Length of hospital stay, duration of anesthesia, and surgery did not show significant difference between the groups. In Regional and General Anesthesia Group 7 and 5 patients had intraoperative blood transfusion, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in decline of mean hemoglobin level. The number of the patients required analgesic in the postoperative 1st hour was significantly higher in General Anesthesia Group (n=43) compared to Regional Anesthesia Group (n=12). No significant difference between the two groups when the total analgesic requirement within the first 24 hours was considered. According to the Modified Clavien Classification no difference was identified between the groups. Conclusion: Considering intraoperative blood loss, duration of operation, length of hospital stay and complications, regional anesthesia is as safe and effective as general anesthesia in percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Regional anesthesia may be a good alternative to general anesthesia with the advantages of less pain and less analgesic requirement during early postoperative period.