Objective: The aim of the article is to assess the impact of retrograde intrarenal surgery under central neuraxial blockade in comparison to general anesthesia (GA).
Material and methodology: This systematic review was conducted following the guidelines set out by the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses. We conducted a comprehensive search across major electronic databases, including various types of studies such as descriptive studies and full-text literature, all of which were incorporated into the current review from 2018 to 2023. We involved those studies, which included the comparative study of spinal anesthesia (SA), epidural anesthesia (EA), and combined spinal epidural anesthesia with GA.
Result: In our meta-analysis of 12 studies, it was found that anesthesia technique significantly affected operation time, with neuraxial anesthesia (NA) showing a mean difference of -2.28 (95% confidence interval (CI): -3.5 to -1.04, P = 0.003) compared to GA. However, there were no significant differences in rates of stone clearance, 24-h pain scores and length of hospital stay among patients administered with NA or GA for retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS).
Conclusion: On the basis of the outcomes of study, NA can serve as a viable alternative to GA for RIRS. Our analysis reveals no significant differences in rates of stone clearance, operation duration, 24-h pain scores, complication rates, and length of hospital stay between NA in addition to GA in the context of RIRS. This suggests that given the potential economic advantages, NA might be a preferable choice over GA, contingent on patient preferences, baseline characteristics, and stone burden.
Keywords: General anesthesia; neuraxial anesthesia; retrograde intrarenal surgery.
Copyright: © 2024 Saudi Journal of Anesthesia.