Karatag, TunaTepeler, AbdulkadirBuldu, IbrahimAKÇAY, MUZAFFERTOSUN, MUHAMMEDIstanbulluoglu, Mustafa OkanArmagan, Abdullah2020-10-222020-10-222015-06-01Karatag T., Tepeler A., Buldu I., AKÇAY M., TOSUN M., Istanbulluoglu M. O. , Armagan A., -Is micro-percutaneous nephrolithotomy surgery technically feasible and efficient under spinal anesthesia?-, UROLITHIASIS, cilt.43, ss.249-254, 2015http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12645/23529The objective of the study was to present the clinical and operative effects of two types of anesthesia on micro-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (-microperc-). We retrospectively reviewed 116 patients who underwent microperc between August 2011 and September 2013. Patients were sorted into one of the two groups according to the type of anesthesia received: general (Group 1, n:53) or spinal (Group 2, n:63). Perioperative variables (age, stone size, location) and outcomes (operation time, success, complication rate) were evaluated and compared. Although there was a statistically significant difference in the mean age of patients (30.3 +/- A 22.1 vs. 45.8 +/- A 14.6, respectively, p < 0.001), mean body mass indexes were similar (p = 0.689). There was no substantial difference in terms of sizes and localizations of stones in the two groups (p = 0.970 and p = 0.795). While a significant difference was found in comparison of operative times (59.62 +/- A 32.56 vs. 40.98 +/- A 26.45 min, p < 0.001), there was no statistically significant difference in mean fluoroscopy times (124.92 +/- A 84.2 vs. 105.2 +/- A 61.0 s, p = 0.441). Stone-free rates were similar (90.5 % vs. 93.6 %, p = 0.297). We found no statistical differences between the two groups with respect to mean hemoglobin drop and hospitalization time (p = 0.015 and p = 0.917, respectively). The complication rates and analog pain scores were also similar (p = 0.543 and p = 0.365). Our results show that microperc is a feasible surgical modality in the treatment of kidney stone disease under both spinal and general anesthesia. Spinal anesthesia may be considered for patients at a high risk for general anesthesia, and also may be an alternative for patients who are concerned about and/or fearful of general anesthesia.ArticleWOS:0003547224000098493997683910.1007/s00240-015-0752-x