Effect comparison of percutaneous nephroscopic surgery under lumbar anesthesia and general anesthesia in treatment of kidney stones
- VernacularTitle:腰麻和全麻下经皮肾镜手术治疗肾结石的效果比较
- Author:
Benfeng WANG
1
;
Weizhen GAO
Author Information
1. 湖北省荣军医院外1科
- Keywords:
Percutaneous nephrolithotomy;
SA;
GA;
Kidney stones
- From:
China Modern Doctor
2015;(22):20-22,26
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective To compare the influences of lumbar anesthesia and general anesthesia on the percutaneous nephroscopic surgical treatment of kidney stones. Methods Sixty patients with kidney stones who received percutaneous nephroscopic treatment in our hospital from June 2010 to September 2014 were analyzed retrospectively and randomly divided into two groups. Thirty patients received surgery under lumbar anesthesia with the intrathecal administration of 15-20 mg of 0.5% bupivacaine and 0.01-0.02 mg of midazolam; Thirty patients received surgery under general anes-thesia with the intrathecal administration of 1-2 μg/kg of fentanyl and 0.01-0.02 mg/kg of midazolam and the intra-venous injection of 100 μg/(kg·min) of propofol and 0.5 mg/kg of atracurium. The systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure and pulse rates of the two groups of patients were monitored continuously and each group of data were recorded. And the patients' operative time, anesthesia time, recovery time, blood loss and changes in systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure and pulse rates were compared. Results In the lumbar anesthesia group, the patients' preoperative mean blood pressure and pulse rate compared with the intraoperative 90-minute blood pressure and pulse rate, with no statistically significant differences (P>0.05). In the general anesthesia group, the patients' preoperative mean blood pressure compared with the intraoperative 90-minute blood pressure, with statistically significant differences (P<0.05). The operative time, anesthesia time and blood loss in the general anesthesia group and the lumbar anesthesia group were(112.2±18.3) vs (99.3±21.1) minutes, (112.2±18.3) vs (101.3±22.0) mintues, and (331.7±151.1) vs (211.0±89.6) mL respectively, with the general anesthesia group were significantly higher than the lumbar anesthesia group (P<0.05). Conclusion In the process of lumbar anesthesia, percutaneous nephroscopic surgery enables stable hemodynamics, causes less blood loss and consumes shorter surgical and anesthesia time, thereby worthy of clinical application.
