Comparison of paravertebral block vs. general anesthesia for percutaneous nephrolithotomy: A retrospective study

被引:1
作者
Fei, Miaomiao [1 ,2 ,3 ,4 ]
Qin, Wendong [1 ,2 ,3 ,4 ]
An, Guanghui [1 ,2 ,3 ,4 ]
Li, Dujian [5 ]
Li, Cheng [1 ,2 ,3 ,4 ]
Xiong, Lize [1 ,2 ,3 ,4 ]
机构
[1] Tongji Univ, Shanghai Peoples Hosp 4, Sch Med, Dept Anesthesiol & Perioperat Med, Shanghai, Peoples R China
[2] Shanghai Key Lab Anesthesiol & Brain Funct Modulat, Shanghai, Peoples R China
[3] Tongji Univ, Shanghai Peoples Hosp 4, Translat Res Inst Brain & Brain Like Intelligence, Sch Med, Shanghai, Peoples R China
[4] Tongji Univ, Clin Res Ctr Anesthesiol & Perioperat Med, Shanghai, Peoples R China
[5] Tongji Univ, Shanghai Peoples Hosp 4, Sch Med, Dept Urol, Shanghai, Peoples R China
基金
上海市自然科学基金;
关键词
paravertebral block (PVB); general anesthesia (GA); percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL); postoperative analgesia; the visual analog scale (VAS) pain score; REGIONAL ANESTHESIA; EFFICACY; UROLITHIASIS; BUPIVACAINE; MANAGEMENT; ANALGESIA; SEDATION; OUTCOMES; SAFETY;
D O I
10.3389/fmed.2023.1081530
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
BackgroundGeneral anesthesia is used in the majority of patients undergoing percutaneous nephrolithotomy. To reduce the general anesthesia-related risks and complications, this study evaluated the efficacy and safety of the paravertebral block as a novel and alternative anesthetic method for percutaneous nephrolithotomy. MethodsThis was a retrospective study. A total of 198 patients under percutaneous nephrolithotomy were included. Among them, 76 patients received paravertebral block and 122 received general anesthesia. Patients' characteristics, surgical outcomes, anesthetic outcomes, and perioperative complications and the visual analog scale (VAS) were recorded to evaluate the efficacy and safety of paravertebral block compared with general anesthesia. Intergroup differences of the parameters were analyzed using an independent t-test and chi(2)-tests appropriate. ResultsSeventy-six patients who underwent paravertebral block completed the surgery successfully, three patients were supplemented with propofol for discomfort during ureteroscopy, and two patients were supplemented with remifentanil for incomplete nerve blockade. Patients who underwent paravertebral block had a higher American Society of Anesthesiologists grade and heart function grade, including patients with contraindications to general anesthesia. Intraoperative and postoperative adverse events and the anesthesia costs were less in patients who underwent paravertebral block. VAS pain scores during the postoperative period in patients who underwent paravertebral block were lower than those in patients who underwent general anesthesia without the use of patient-controlled intravenous analgesia. ConclusionIn this retrospective study, paravertebral block was found to be effective and safe in providing intraoperative anesthesia for percutaneous nephrolithotomy, and had less adverse events and anesthesia costs. Paravertebral block is an attractive alternative anesthesia for patients at increased risk of comorbidities following general or neuraxial anesthesia.
引用
收藏
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
[21]   Ultrasound-guided low thoracic paravertebral block versus peritubal infiltration for percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a prospective randomized study [J].
Yayik, Ahmet Murat ;
Ahiskalioglu, Ali ;
Demirdogen, Saban Oguz ;
Ahiskalioglu, Elif Oral ;
Alici, Haci Ahmet ;
Kursad, Husnu .
UROLITHIASIS, 2020, 48 (03) :235-244
[22]   Comparative study of ultrasound-guided paravertebral block versus intravenous tramadol for postoperative pain control in percutaneous nephrolithotomy [J].
Hatipoglu, Zehra ;
Gulec, Ersel ;
Turktan, Mediha ;
Izol, Volkan ;
Aridogan, Atilla ;
Gunes, Yasemin ;
Ozcengiz, Dilek .
BMC ANESTHESIOLOGY, 2018, 18
[23]   Comparison of ultrasound-guided paravertebral block versus erector spinae plane block for postoperative analgesia after percutaneous nephrolithotomy - A randomised, double-blind, controlled study [J].
Khot, Prajna Pandit ;
Desai, Sameer N. ;
Bale, Sushmitha P. ;
Aradhya, Bhuvanesh N. .
INDIAN JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIA, 2023, 67 (12) :1110-1115
[24]   Comparison of Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy Under Spinal Versus General Anesthesia: A Randomized Clinical Trial [J].
Nouralizadeh, Akbar ;
Ziaee, Seyed Amir Mohsen ;
Sharifi, Seyed Hossein Hosseini ;
Basiri, Abbas ;
Tabibi, Ali ;
Sharifiaghdas, Farzaneh ;
Kilani, Hossein ;
Gharaei, Babak ;
Roodneshin, Fatemeh ;
Soltani, Mohammad Hossein .
JOURNAL OF ENDOUROLOGY, 2013, 27 (08) :974-978
[25]   Analgesic efficacy of ultrasound guided paravertebral block in percutaneous nephrolithotomy patients: a randomized controlled clinical study [J].
Yaman, Ferda ;
Tuglu, Devrim .
BMC ANESTHESIOLOGY, 2020, 20 (01)
[26]   Effect of thoracic paravertebral block on intraoperative hypotension and postoperative pain in patients undergoing breast cancer surgery under general anesthesia: a retrospective study [J].
Ji, Jia-Wei ;
Liu, Yan ;
Liu, Zhen-Qing ;
Wang, Ye .
ANNALS OF PALLIATIVE MEDICINE, 2021, 10 (08) :8930-8938
[27]   Thoracic Paravertebral Block for Postoperative Pain Management in Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy Patients: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial [J].
Ak, K. ;
Gursoy, S. ;
Duger, C. ;
Isbir, A. C. ;
Kaygusuz, K. ;
Kol, I. Ozdemir ;
Gokce, G. ;
Mimaroglu, C. .
MEDICAL PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICE, 2013, 22 (03) :229-233
[28]   Comparison of Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy Under Regional versus General Anesthesia: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials [J].
Liu, Xiaocheng ;
Huang, Guiming ;
Zhong, Ruipeng ;
Hu, Shifu ;
Deng, Ruiming .
UROLOGIA INTERNATIONALIS, 2018, 101 (02) :132-142
[29]   Retrospective Comparison of Anesthetic Methods for Percutaneous Balloon Kyphoplasty Surgery: General Anesthesia and Erector Spinae Plane Block [J].
Demir, Ufuk ;
Taskin, Oeztuerk .
MEDICINA-LITHUANIA, 2023, 59 (02)
[30]   Flexible ureterorenoscopy vs percutaneous nephrolithotomy for renal stone management: Retrospective study [J].
Palmero, X. ;
Balssa, L. ;
Bernardini, S. ;
Chabannes, E. ;
Guichard, G. ;
Bittard, H. ;
Kleinclauss, F. .
PROGRES EN UROLOGIE, 2016, 26 (09) :500-506