A comparative study of combined spinal epidural anaesthesia and general anaesthesia in patients undergoing percutaneous nephrolithotomy

Virkar, Nilam Dharma; Patkar, Geeta A.; Ranjan, Rajeev; Tendolkar, Bharati A

doi:10.18203/2320-6012.ijrms20162614

Cited by 2 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the present study, demographic variables were comparable in both the groups which were similar to other studies [7][8][9][10].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

“…Kumawat et al [9] reported that in Group EA, 8.9% of patients complained of nausea as compared to Group GA 37.5% and was statistically significant. Similarly high incidence of nausea and vomiting were also reported by other studies [8,17]. Mehrabi et al [7] reported that post-operative headache and lower back pain was significantly high in group spinal as compared to Group GA. None of the patients in either group complained of shortness of breath intra and postoperatively.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 73%

“…Other variables (RR, SPO 2 , and ETCO 2 ) in present study were comparable in both the groups at different time intervals (p>0.05). Similar results were also reported by other studies[8][9][10][11]15]. Postoperative MAP, SBP, DBP and SPO 2 were comparable in both the groups (p>0.05) and intragroup comparison was also comparable regarding all hemodynamic parameters postoperatively.…”

supporting

confidence: 90%

“…Swarnkar et al [15] also showed similar results. This difference in mean Virkar et al [8] reported that 30% of patients in Group GA required rescue analgesia within 1 st h of post-operative period whereas no patient in CSE group required analgesia within 1 st h. About 70% of patients in group CSE required rescue analgesia at 3 h whereas most of the patients in GA group required rescue analgesia within first 2 h (p<0.05). Mean of total dose of levobupivacaine (mg) required postoperatively in Group ED was significantly higher in comparison to Group CSE (p<0.001).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 90%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Efficacy and Safety of Conventional Epidural Versus Combined Spinal Epidural in Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy: A Prospective and Randomized Clinical Study

Rathore

Prasad

Harsha³

et al. 2023

Asian J Pharm Clin Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: The aim of the study was to compare the efficacy and safety of conventional epidural (ED) versus combined spinal epidural (CSE) in percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) with addition of opiods and dexmedetomidine. Methods: This prospective, randomized, and double-blinded clinical study was conducted in the in patients undergoing PCNL. Group CSE had received CSE anesthesia and Group ED given conventional epidural anesthesia. Time to first rescue analgesic and total dose of rescue analgesic along with hemodynamic parameters were compared up to 24 h. Patient, surgeon satisfaction score, and post-operative complications were also compared. Results: Time from onset of sensory block to first requirement of analgesia was prolonged in group CSE (218.4±18.30 min) as compared to Group ED (210±17.88 min). (p<0.001) Mean time for first rescue analgesia postoperatively was highly significant in group CSE (2.42±0.49) as compared to Group ED (2.08±0.28). (p<0.0001) Total dose of levobupivacaine required was high in Group ED (49.66±7.02) as compared to Group CSE (45.66±3.12). (p<0.001) In Group ED, surgeon score was good in 20 (44.44%) patients and which was highly significant. In Group CSE, surgeon score was excellent in 41 (91.1%) patients and which was highly significant. (p<0.001) Post-operative complications in both the group were comparable (p>0.05). Conclusion: This study concluded that though both the anesthesia techniques are safe and efficient with each having its own benefits. CSE had proven superiority over the epidural technique.

show abstract

“…In the present study, demographic variables were comparable in both the groups which were similar to other studies [7][8][9][10].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 73%

supporting

confidence: 90%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 90%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Efficacy and Safety of Conventional Epidural Versus Combined Spinal Epidural in Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy: A Prospective and Randomized Clinical Study

Rathore

Prasad

Harsha³

et al. 2023

Asian J Pharm Clin Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Hypotension due to sympathetic blockade is always a possibility. Postoperative shivering is higher in EA patients [47]. Patients' and surgeons' satisfaction is higher in GA cases [48].…”

Section: Ssamentioning

confidence: 93%

Merits of Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy for Large and/or Complex Renal Stones “Retrospective Study”

Abbas¹

2023

MJUN

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy (PNL) is a well-established technique for the removal of renal stones. Large and complex renal stones are difficult stones to deal with. Aim of Study: This study is to evaluate our results of PNL for the treatment of large and complex renal stones concerningstone-free rates (SFR) and complications. Patients and Methods: From From 2012 to 2022, four hundred and four renal units with large and/or complex renal stones were subjected to PNL. Eightynine per cent were males and 11% were females. The average stone surface area (SA) was 872mm 2 . Results: Stone-free rate (SFR) was 79% for cases submitted to PNL alone and 88.4% for those managed with auxiliary procedures. Hospital stay ranged from 2 to 21 days (Av. 3.6 days).The overall complication rate was 8% and was managed conservatively. Conclusion:PCNL is a safe and effective procedure for the management of large and complex renal stones. There was a significant decrease in the overall stone-free rate and increased complication rates with increased stone surface area. Stones >1500mm2 are difficult stones for any modality.A multimodal approach should be thought of for large and complex renal stones.

show abstract

A comparative study of combined spinal epidural anaesthesia and general anaesthesia in patients undergoing percutaneous nephrolithotomy

Cited by 2 publications

References 13 publications

Efficacy and Safety of Conventional Epidural Versus Combined Spinal Epidural in Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy: A Prospective and Randomized Clinical Study

Efficacy and Safety of Conventional Epidural Versus Combined Spinal Epidural in Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy: A Prospective and Randomized Clinical Study

Merits of Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy for Large and/or Complex Renal Stones “Retrospective Study”

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About