Journals / Selçuk Tıp Dergisi / 2010 / Cilt: 26 - Sayı: 4

Spinal anesthesia for shock wave lithotripsy; which cases is it preferred in?

Taşkırma için spinal anestezi; Hangi durumlarda tercih ediyoruz?

Pages
135–137
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Also, the second practice of anesthesia and hospital admission of the patients has been prevented.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In this study we evaluated the efficiency and reliability of spinal anesthesia during extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) after the ineffective ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URL).
📊
Key Findings & Data:In our clinic for 4 years, all of 17 patients who were applied SWL under spinal anesthesia (Group 1) were received to study.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Also, the second practice of anesthesia and hospital admission of the patients has been prevented.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

In this study we evaluated the efficiency and reliability of spinal anesthesia during extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) after the ineffective ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URL). In our clinic for 4 years, all of 17 patients who were applied SWL under spinal anesthesia (Group 1) were received to study. Also, 17 patients were administered sedo-analgesia with midazolam and fentanyl (Group 2) were included randomly into the study. Group 1 patients were transported to the SWL unit with monitoring and observance of anesthetist under spinal block after ineffective URL. The diameter of the stones, the level of the maximal energy, SWL, fluoroscopy and recovery times, the rate of stone free were recorded. The pain assessment was performed with verbal pain scale (VPS). Any patients showed hypotension, bradycardia, desaturation and nause-vomiting. There were no significant differences related to the diameter of the stones, SWL and flouroscopy times, the rate of stone free between groups. The maximal energy was 56.7 mjoule in Group 1, 47.6 mjoule in Group 2 (p<0.05). Recovery times were 156.4 min in Group 1, 78.5 min in Group 2 (p<0.05). The mean VPS scores were 0 in Group 1 and 3.4 in Group 2. In this study we observed that the spinal anesthesia during SWL after the ineffective URL was efficient and reliable. Also, the second practice of anesthesia and hospital admission of the patients has been prevented.

Özet

Bu çalışmada, spinal anestezi altında yapılan başarısız üreteroskopik taş tedavisi (URS) sonrası aynı seansta planlanan beden dışı şok dalga litotripsi (SWL) işleminde mevcut spinal anestezinin etkinliği ve güvenilirliğini değerlendirmeyi amaçladık. Kliniğimizde taş tedavisi için SWL yapılan 34 hasta çalışmaya alındı. Grup 1’e, başarısız URS sonrası SWL planlanan spinal anestezi yapılmış toplam 17 hasta alındı. Grup 2 ise sedo-analjezi altında (midazolam+fentanil) SWL uygulanmış hastalardan rasgele yöntemle seçilmiş 17 hastadan oluştu. Grup 1’deki hastalar spinal anestezi ile yapılan URS sonrası vital bulguları monitorize edilerek ameliyathaneden alınıp anestezi doktoru eşliğinde SWL ünitesine götürülmüştür. Tüm hastaların taş çapları, uygulanan maksimum enerji düzeyleri, SWL, floroskopi, derlenme ve yürümeye başlama süreleri ve taşsızlık oranlarının kayıtları alınarak istatistiksel karşılaştırmaları yapıldı. Hastaların ağrı skorları verbal analog skalası (VAS) ile değrlendirildi. Hiçbir hastada SWL sırasında hipotansiyon, bradikardi, desaturasyon ve bulantıkusma gözlenmedi. Grup 1’de maksimum enerji ortalama 56,7 mjoule, Grup 2’de ise 47,6 mjoule idi(p<0.05). SWL/skopi süreleri ve taşsızlık oranları yönünden gruplar arasında anlamlı fark yoktu. Yürümeye başlama ve derlenme ortalama süreleri Grup1’de 156,4/57,7 dakika, Grup 2’de137,8/78,5 dakika idi (p<0.05). Grup 1 hastalarda hiç ağrı gözlenmezken (VAS=0), Grup 2 hastalarda ortalama VAS değeri ise 3,4 idi. Çalışmamızda, başarısız URS sonrası yapılan SWL’de spinal anestezi etkin ve güvenli bulunmuştur. Ayrıca hastanın ikinci kez hastaneye başvurusu ve anestezi alması önlenmiş olur.

🔖

Cite This Article

DOĞAN, R., İSTANBULLUOĞLU, M. O., ÇİÇEK, T., İŞBİLEN, C., GÖNEN, M., ÖZTÜRK, B. (2010). Spinal anesthesia for shock wave lithotripsy; which cases is it preferred in?. Selçuk Tıp Dergisi, Cilt: 26 - Sayı: 4, 135–137. https://ajindex.com/articles/319129

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (8)

  1. Lau WC, Green CR, Faerber GJ, Tait AR, Golembiewski JA. Determination of the effective therapeutic dose of intrathecal sufentanil for extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. Anesth Analg 1999; 89: 889-92
  2. Eaton MP, Chhibber AK, Green DR. Subarachnoid sufentanil versus lidocaine spinal anesthesia for extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. Reg Anesth 1997; 22: 515-20
  3. Lau WC, Green CR, Faerber GJ, Tait AR, Golembiewski JA. Intrathecal sufentanil for extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy provides earlier discharge of the outpatient than intrathecal lidocaine. Anesth Analg 1997; 84: 1227-31
  4. Shaikh AH, Khalid SE, Zaidi SZ. Ureteroscopy under spinal versus general anaesthesia: morbidity and stone clearance. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak 2008; 18: 168-71
  5. Christian C, Thorsten B. The preferred treatment for upper tract stones is extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) or ureteroscopic: pro ESWL. Urology 2009; 74: 259-62
  6. Ghalayini IF, Al-Ghazo MA, Khader YS. Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy versus ureteroscopy for distal ureteric calculi: efficacy and patient satisfaction. Int Braz J Urol 2006; 32: 656-67
  7. Kaygusuz K, Gokce G, Gursoy S, Ayan S, Mimaroglu C, Gultekin Y. A comparison of sedation with dexmedetomidine or propofol during shockwave lithotripsy: a randomized controlled trial. Anesth Analg. 2008; 106: 114-9
  8. Erden IA, Artukoglu F, Gozacan A, Ozgen S. Comparison of propofol/fentanyl and ketamine anesthesia in children during extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy. Saudi Med J 2007; 28: 364-8.