Comparison of regional and general anesthesia for retrograde intrarenal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

区域麻醉与全身麻醉在逆行性肾内手术中的比较:系统评价和荟萃分析

阅读:2

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for urolithiasis under different anesthesia methods based on current evidence. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In March 2022, systematic research was conducted using the databases PubMed, Embase, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Library to compare outcomes of RIRS with regional anesthesia (RA) or general anesthesia (GA) through randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies. Data analysis was performed using the comprehensive meta-analysis software version 3. RESULTS: Eight RCTs and one retrospective study, involving a total of 2,111 individuals, were included in the current review. Pooled data revealed no significant statistical differences in RIRS under RA compared to RIRS under GA in terms of stone-free rate (SFR) [odds ratio (OR) = 1.02, p = 0.94], operating duration [weighted mean difference (MD) = -0.04, p = 0.88], length of hospital stay (MD = -0.05, p = 0.63), postoperative first-day visual analog scale score (MD = 0.18, p = 0.30), and complication rates (OR = 0.83, p = 0.20). However, one of the RCTs reviewed showed a potential negative effect of GA on the renal function at the operative site. Maneuverability and accessibility were found to be significantly better with SA and sedation than with GA. Additionally, the cost of GA was noted to be significantly higher than that of RA, according to more than one RCT. CONCLUSION: The present study revealed that RIRS under RA is not inferior in effectiveness and safety compared to that under GA, in terms of SFR, operating time, length of hospital stay, postoperative pain scores, and complication rates. Moreover, RA may offer better long-term renal function preservation and be more cost effective than GA. To improve maneuverability and accessibility for operators, we suggested that RA with sedation could be a suitable alternative with careful patient selection.Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42023463411, identifier: CRD42023463411.

特别声明

1、本页面内容包含部分的内容是基于公开信息的合理引用;引用内容仅为补充信息,不代表本站立场。

2、若认为本页面引用内容涉及侵权,请及时与本站联系,我们将第一时间处理。

3、其他媒体/个人如需使用本页面原创内容,需注明“来源:[生知库]”并获得授权;使用引用内容的,需自行联系原作者获得许可。

4、投稿及合作请联系:info@biocloudy.com。