The aim of the present meta-analysis was to systematically examine the literature and to identify of the results of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy and safety of regional anesthesia (RA) versus general anesthesia (GA) for percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL). An exhaustive electronic literature search of PubMed, Embase, and Web of science was performed until March 2018. Nine prospective RCTs concluding 858 patients comparing the use of RA to GA for PCNL were included. Combined results demonstrated that PCNL under RA could reduce operative time (mean difference [MD] –6.20; 95% CI –10.39 to –2.01), hospital stay (MD –0.59; 95% CI –0.74 to –0.45), visual analgesic score on the first and third postoperative day (MD –2.62, 95% CI –3.04 to –2.19 and MD –0.38; 95% CI –0.58 to –0.18) , analgesic requirements (MD –36.84; 95% CI –55.23 to –18.45), and nausea and/or vomiting (relative risk [RR] 0.28; 95% CI 0.13–0.61). There were no significant differences between RA and GA groups in terms of stone-free rate, blood transfusion, and postoperative fever rate. The results of subgroup analysis were basically consistent with the overall findings. Current evidence suggests that RA is an available and safe option in carefully evaluated and selected patients.

Keywords:
Percutaneous nephrolithotomy, Anesthesia, Efficacy, Safety, Randomized controlled trials
1.
Fernstrom I, Johansson B: Percutaneous -pyelolithotomy. A new extraction technique. Scand J Urol Nephrol 1976; 10: 257–259.
2.
Kim SC, Kuo RL, Lingeman JE: Percutaneous nephrolithotomy: an update. Curr Opin Urol 2003; 13: 235–241.
3.
Geraghty RM, Jones P, Somani BK: Worldwide trends of urinary stone disease treatment over the last two decades: a systematic review. J Endourol 2017; 31: 547–556.
4.
Ganpule AP, Vijayakumar M, Malpani A, -Desai MR: Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) a critical review. Int J Surg 2016; 36: 660–664.
5.
Stening SG, Bourne S: Supracostal percutaneous nephrolithotomy for upper pole caliceal calculi. J Endourol 1998; 12: 359–362.
6.
Lojanapiwat B, Prasopsuk S: 2006 Upper-pole -access for percutaneous nephrolithotomy: comparison of supracostal and infracostal approaches. J Endourol 2006; 20: 491–494.
7.
Jun-Ou J, Lojanapiwat B: Supracostal access: does it affect tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy efficacy and safety? Int Braz J Urol 2010; 36: 171–176.
8.
Kuzgunbay B, Turunc T, Akin S, Ergenoglu P, Aribogan A, Ozkardes H: Percutaneous nephrolithotomy under general versus combined spinal-epidural anesthesia. J Endourol 2009; 23: 1835–1838.
9.
Karacalar S, Bilen CY, Sarihasan B, Sarikaya S: Spinal-epidural anesthesia versus general anesthesia in the management of percutaneous nephrolithotripsy. J Endourol 2009; 23: 1591–1597.
10.
Mehrabi S, Mousavi Zadeh A, Akbartabar Toori M, Mehrabi F: General versus spinal anesthesia in percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Urol J 2013; 10: 756–761.
11.
Movasseghi G, Hassani V, Mohaghegh MR, Safaeian R, Safari S, Zamani MM, Nabizadeh R: Comparison between spinal and general anesthesia in percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Anesth Pain Med 2014; 4:e13871.
12.
Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC, Juni P, Moher D, Oxman AD, Savovic J, Schulz KF, Weeks L, Sterne JA: The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2011; 343:d5928.
13.
Singh V, Sinha RJ, Sankhwar SN, Malik A: A prospective randomized study comparing percutaneous nephrolithotomy under combined spinal-epidural anesthesia with percutaneous nephrolithotomy under general anesthesia. Urol Int 2011; 87: 293–298.
14.
Shah R, Thapa AS, Lamichhane N, Kc SR: Safety and efficacy of spinal anaesthesia in percutaneous nephrolithotomy. JNMA J Nepal Med Assoc 2016; 55: 61–66.
15.
Tangpaitoon T, Nisoog C, Lojanapiwat B: Efficacy and safety of percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL): a prospective and randomized study comparing regional epidural anesthesia with general anesthesia. Int Braz J Urol 2012; 38: 504–511.
16.
Nouralizadeh A, Ziaee SA, Hosseini Sharifi SH, Basiri A, Tabibi A, Sharifiaghdas F, Kilani H, Gharaei B, Roodneshin F, Soltani MH: Comparison of percutaneous nephrolithotomy under spinal versus general anesthesia: a randomized clinical trial. J Endourol 2013; 27: 974–978.
17.
Moawad HE, El Hefnawy AS: Spinal vs. general anesthesia for percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a prospective randomized trial. Egypt J Anaesthesia 2015; 31: 71–75.
18.
Elbealy E, Rashwan D, Kassim SA, Abbas S: A comparison of the effects of epidural anesthesia, lumbar paravertebral block and general anesthesia in percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Med Sci 2018; 8: 170–176.
19.
Pu C, Wang J, Tang Y, Yuan H, Li J, Bai Y, Wang X, Wei Q, Han P: The efficacy and safety of percutaneous nephrolithotomy under general versus regional anesthesia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Urolithiasis 2015; 43: 455–466.
20.
Hu H, Qin B, He D, Lu Y, Zhao Z, Zhang J, Wang Y, Wang S: Regional versus general anesthesia for percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a meta-analysis. PLoS One 2015; 10: e0126587.
21.
Xun Y, Wang Q, Hu H, Lu Y, Zhang J, Qin B, Geng Y, Wang S: Tubeless versus standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy: an update meta-analysis. BMC Urol 2017; 17: 102.
22.
Sugihara T, Yasunaga H, Horiguchi H, Fujimura T, Nishimatsu H, Kume H, Ohe K, Matsuda S, Fushimi K, Homma Y: Longer operative time is associated with higher risk of severe complications after percutaneous nephrolithotomy: analysis of 1511 cases from a Japanese nationwide database. Int J Urol 2013; 20: 1193–1198.
© 2018 S. Karger AG, Basel
2018
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.