Vol 16 No 03 May-June 2019 246
ENDOUROLOGY AND STONE DISEASE
Comparison of Two Different Anesthesia Methods in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy.
Mehmet Solakhan1*, Ersan Bulut2, Mehmet Sakıp Erturhan3
Purpose: The study aims to compare the effectiveness, safety and costs of two different anesthesia methods in
percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) operations.
Material and Method: In our study, data was retrospectively examined of 1657 patients who underwent PCNL
due to renal calculi between 2009 and 2017. Patients were separated into two groups according to the type of
anesthesia; as those who underwent PCNL by general anesthesia (GA) (n = 572) and those under spinal anesthe-
sia(SA) (n = 1085). Standard PCNL technique was used in both groups. Gender, age, operation duration, period of
hospitalization, stone-free ratio, post-operative narcotic analgesic need and complications were compared between
these two groups.
Results: A total of 1657 patients consisting of 1064 (64.2%) male patients and 593 (35.8%) female patients were
included in the study. The average age of the all patients was 33.2 ± 12.4 (range 16-74) years. The two groups were
similar in terms of mean age, gender, stone size, stone location and body mass index. Mean operation time was sig-
nificantly shorter in the SA group than in the GA group (81.8 ± 33.9 minute vs. 118.2 ± -42.9 minute respectively,
P < .001). Mean period of hospitalization was remarkable shorter in the SA group than in the GA group (30.0 ± 9.9
hours vs. 38.4 ± 11.2 hours respectively, P < .001). Post-operative narcotic analgesic need rate was significantly
higher in the GA group than in the SA group (33.4% vs. 10.9%, respectively, P < .001). Anesthesia cost was found
significantly lower in the SA group than in the GA group (USD 21.3±2.8 vs. USD 83.6 ± 9.5, respectively, P <
.001). Significant difference was not observed between both groups in terms of stone-free ratio, amount of bleed-
ing, fluoroscopy time, pre-operative and post-operative complications.
Conclusion: Compared to those performed with GA, PCNL performed with SA is a safe, effective and low-cost
method.
Keywords: cost; percutaneous nephrolithotomy; spinal anesthesia
INTRODUCTION
Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) was defined in the treatment of renal calculi for the first time
in 1976 by Fernström and Johansson.(1) A breakthrough
in the surgical treatment of renal calculi, this develop-
ment, together with the technological developments in
Endourology, became a method preferred against open
surgery in the treatment of renal calculi as a minimal
invasive method. In time, depending on the miniaturiza-
tion of the equipment used, PCNL started being imple-
mented on patients in almost all age groups by leading
to less complication and less bleeding. PCNL is a treat-
ment method preferred in renal calculi larger than 2 cm,
in many renal calculi and staghorn renal calculi.(2) Gen-
eral anesthesia (GA) is the most widely used anesthe-
sia method in PCNL operations.(3) However, there are
risks of encountering pulmonary (atelectasia), vascular
and neurological complications in GA. Especially, un-
der GA, there is the risk of brachial plexus and spinal
trauma when giving operative position to the patient.
1Urology Departmant, Gaziantep Medicalpark Hospital, School of Medicine, Bahcesehir University, Istanbul,
Turkey.
2Urology Departmant, School of Medicine, Bulent Ecevit University, Zonguldak, Turkey.
3Urology Departmant, School of Medicine, Gaziantep University, Gaziantep, Turkey.
*Correspondence: School of Medicine, Bahcesehir University, Gaziantep Medicalpark Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey
Tel: +90 532 7785068. Fax: +90 342 3248860-5026. E-mail: msolakhan@hotmail.com.
Received December 2017 & Accepted February 2018
(4) It is obvious that this risk will increase especially in
elder and obese patients. In addition, compared to those
receiving spinal anesthesia (SA), patients receiving GA
have the risk of staying immobile post-operatively and
hence the risk of extended ileus and deep vein throm-
bosis. However, in PCNL operations performed with
SA, as the patient is awake under the first access, risk is
minimized for damage that may occur in extremities or
nerves during positioning. Morever, early mobilization
can be achieved in the post-operative period.(4,5)
In the examination we conducted on the large retrospec-
tive patient series, we evaluated different parameters
such as effectiveness, safety, cost and complications in
PCNL conducted with GA and SA.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Study population and design
A number of 1657 patients undergoing PCNL between
March 2009 and April 2017 were included in our study.
Patients included in the study were those who were
planned to undergo PNL due to stone disease and had
no anesthetic concerns. The patients with the following
characteristics were excluded from the study: Patients
younger than 16 years old, patients with renal anomaly,
patients with solitary kidney, with irreversible coagu-
lopathy, with vertebral and/or skeletal anomaly, with
severe cardiac-pulmonary failure.
The operations were performed by similar teams and
by implementing the same procedure. Parameters such
as gender, age, body-mass index, operation duration,
hospitalization period, pre-operative ASA (American
Society of Anesthesia) evaluation, post-operative nar-
cotic analgesia need, stone burden, pre-operative and
post-operative hemoglobin, post-operative complica-
tion, pre-operative tension tracking, anesthesia cost and
fluoroscopy duration were compared between the two
groups. (Table1 & 2)
All patients were administered intravenous prophylac-
tic antibiotic (ceftriaxone 1 gram) treatment. Calculi of
size 4 mm and smaller were considered as insignificant
residue. Pre-operative 20mg/kg ringer lactate solution
was given to each patient in the SA group in order to
prevent hypotension. Then, 20 mg 0.5% bupivacaine
was given to the subarachnoid cavity in the decubitus
position using 27-gauge injection, by entering interver-
tebral between L2-L3. Midazolam (2 mg) was given as
intravenous for sedation. Midazolam (2 mg) was given
as pre-medication to all the patients in the GA group.
Then 2mg/kg propofol, 1 mg/kg fentanyl and 0.5 mg/kg
rocuronium bromide was given for induction. 1-2% iso-
flurane and 40% nitrous oxide was given with oxygen.
Then intubation was conducted.
Surgical technique
5F or 6F ureteral catheter was used for retrograde cathe-
terization in both groups. After the catheter was mount-
ed, the patient was taken to prone position. The kid-
ney was entered with 19 gauge percutaneous injection
accompanied with fluoroscopy. Amplatz dilators were
used for dilation. 30F sheat was placed and 26F ne-
phroscope was used. Standard PCNL procedures were
implemented. Intravenous tenoxicam 20 mg was used
for post-operative pain. Tramadol or morphine sulphate
was used in severe pain cases. Erythrocythe suspension
was given to patients with hemoglobin values below
10g/dL and who were symptomatic.
Statistical analysis
Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS soft-
ware version 15. The variables were investigated using
visual (histograms, probability plots) and analytical
methods (Kolmogorov-Simirnov/Shapiro-Wilk’s test)
to determine whether or not they are normally distrib-
uted. As the patient numbers did not show normal dis-
tribution, analyses of the groups were compared using
the Wilcoxon test and Mann-Whitney U test. The Chi-
square test, where appropriate, was used to compare
Table 1. Pre-operative attributes of the patients
Variables1 Spinal anesthesia General anesthesia P
Gender (M/F) 723/362 341/231 .134
Age, (median/y) 34.3 ± 11.1 32.7 ± 13.1 .645
Average calculi size,mm2 635.2 ± 304.1 644.5 ± 301.8 .456
Stone location 0.76
Upper calyx 163 (15%) 98 (17.1%)
Pelvis and caliyx 507 (46.7%) 237 (41.5%)
Lower calyx 305 (28.2%) 171 (29.9%)
Proximal ureter 38 (3.5%) 23 (4%)
Staghorn 72 (6.6%) 43 (7.5%)
Stone laterality(left/right) 500/585 354/218
ASA2 .92
I 514 (47%) 231 (40%)
II 443 (41%) 235 (41%)
III 128 (12%) 106 (19%)
BMI3 kg/m2 25.1 ± 4.6 24.2 ± 3.5 .127
Previous stone intervention 117 (10.7) 58 (10.1) .83
Open 66 (%6) 31(%5.4)
PCNL 51(%4.7) 27(%5)
1Data are presented as mean ± SD or number (percent)
Abbreviations: ASA, American Society of Anesthesia; BMI, Body mass index
Variable1 General anesthesia Spinal anesthesia P
Operation time (min) 118.2 ± -42.9 81.8 ± 33.9 < .001
Hospitalization period (hours) 38.4 ± 11.2 30.0 ± 9.9 < .001
Fluoroscopy duration (s) 61.2 ± 21.2 63.4 ± 23.4 .86
Stone free rate 477(83.4%) 923(85.1%) .48
Bleeding amount (ml) 179.2 ± 94.3 166.3 ± 83.4 .32
Narcotic analgesia need 191(33.4%) 118(10.9%) < .001
Blood transfusion(1 or 2 Ü erythrocyte susp.) 24(4.2%) 45(4.1%) .92
Drug and consumables cost USD2 83.6 ± 9.5 USD 21.3 ± 2.8 < .001
1 Data are presented as mean ± SD or number (percent)
Abbreviations: USD: American Dollar
Table 2. Intra-operative and post-operative attributes in both groups.
SA is a safe, effective and low-cost in PCNL-Solakhan et al.
Endourology and Stones diseases 247
Vol 16 No 03 May-June 2019 248
proportions in different groups. A p-value of less than
0.05 was considered to show a statistically significant
result.
RESULTS
A total of 1657 patients consisting of 1064 (64.2%)
male patients and 593 (35.8%) female patients were
included in the study. Demographic attributes of the pa-
tients are provided in Table 1. Statistically significant
differences were not observed between the two groups
in age, gender, body-mass index, average calculi size,
calculi localization, anesthesia risk assessment (ASA),
and previous stone intervention. (P = .645, P = .134, P
= .127, P = .456, P = .76, P = .92, P = .83 respectively).
Operation results, intra-operative and post-operative sit-
uations are given in Table 2. Operation duration, hospi-
talization period, post-operative narcotic analgesic need
and anesthesia drug-consumables cost was determined
to be higher in the GA group (P < .001). Post-opera-
tive complications were classified according to Modi-
fied Clevian and provided in Table 3. Complications of
spinal anesthesia were observed in 265 (24%) patients
during operation. Hypotension, nausea and vomiting
were the most frequently observed complications. They
were taken under control with ephedrine and metoclo-
pramide. Serious hypotension developed in 2 patients.
The patients were taken to supine position and the oper-
ation was continued after blood pressure was corrected
with ephedrine and volume expander and colloid fluid.
One unit of blood was given to 45 patients due to hypo-
tension and bleeding. Anesthesia related complications
were observed in 136 (23%) patients in the GA group.
Hypertension, nausea and vomiting during extubation
was observed most frequently. Major vascular injury,
neurological and visceral organ injury was not observed
in both groups. Intraoperative hypotension was deter-
mined to be higher in the SA group. Atelectasia devel-
oped in 8 (1.4%) patients in the GA group. They were
corrected with breathing exercises.
The success of the operation was assessed with abdom-
inal ultrasonography and radiography taken after the
surgery in both groups. Residual calculi burden was
observed to be similar in both groups (p = .48). Narcot-
ic analgesia requirement was observed to be higher in
the GA group. Average drug and material cost used in
spinal and general anesthesia was determined as USD
21.3±2.8 and USD 83.6 ± 9.5 respectively (P < .001).
The operation duration and the hospitalization period
were determined to be significantly lower in the SA
group (P < .001).
DISCUSSION
In this large series study that we conducted, we showed
that compared to GA, PCNL conducted with SA had
many advantages such as short operation duration, short
hospitalization period and low cost. PCNL is an effec-
tive method applied usually under GA on large, multi-
ple and complex calculi in the upper urinary system.(2)
The number of publications on PCNL performed with
regional anesthesia is increasing. However, the number
of patients has usually remained low in these publica-
tions.(4,6,7) The current study aimed to compare PCNL
performed with SA and GA in terms of safety and ef-
fectiveness in the wide series patient group. Although
GA is the first preference in many centers, applying
GA may be inconvenient in many cases such as chronic
obstructive pulmonary disease and cardiovascular dis-
eases.(4,6-10)
Moreover, GA has disadvantages such as, anaphylaxis
development risk and probability of the endotracheal
tube getting displaced when going from the lithotomy
to prone position.(4) Due to high probable complications
in morbid obese patients, SA may be a better alterna-
tive for these patients.(4,5) Stone-free ratios in different
studies conducted with different methods were reported
as 53.8% and 97%.(4,6,7,11) In our study, stone-free rate
Table 3. Comparison of post-operative complications according to modified clavien classification.
Modified Clavien Classification GROUP GA GROUP SA
(n=572) (n=1085)
No complication 436(76.2%) 820(75.5%)
Grade 1 40(6.9%) 114(10.5%)
Fever 28(4.9%) 52(4.8%)
Hedache 12(2%) 62(5.7%)
Grade 2 55(9.6%) 89(8.2%)
Blood transfusion 24(4.2%) 45(4.2%)
Atelectasi 8(1.4%) 0(%)
Urinary tract infection 15(2.6%) 28(2.6%)
Hematuria> 48 h 8(1.4%) 16(1.4%)
Grade 3a 24(4.2%) 31(2.9%)
Pneumothrax 0(%) 0(%)
Hemothorax 0(%) 0(%)
Prolonged drainage 19(3.3%) 28(2.6%)
Urinoma 5(0.9%) 3(0.3%)
Grade 3b 14(2.4%) 26(2.4%)
Arteriovenous fistula 3(0.5%) 6(0.5%)
Perirenal Haematoma 4(0.7%) 8(0.7%)
Calculi in the ureter or bladder 7(1.2%) 12(1.2%)
Perinephric abscess 0(%) 0(%)
Grade 4a 0(%) 0(%)
Heart attack 0(%) 0(%)
Pulmonary embolism 0(%) 0(%)
Grade 4b 3(0.5%) 5(0.5%)
Urosepsis 3(0.5%) 5(0.5%)
Grade 5 0(%) 0(%)
Death 0(%) 0(%)
Total 572(100%) 1085(100%)
SA is a safe, effective and low-cost in PCNL-Solakhan et al.
was found as 83.4% in the GA group and 85.1% in the
SA group and the difference between the two groups
was found to be statistically insignificant.
In the studies performed, hospitalization period and
operation duration were determined to be different in
PCNL performed with SA and GA. In some studies, the
hospitalization period was found to be related to the an-
esthesia technique. Shorter hospitalization period was
reported in patients to whom regional anesthesia was
applied. In these studies, no difference was detected in
terms of the type of anesthesia applied and operation
and fluoroscopy duration.(6,7,11) In our study, the opera-
tion duration and the hospitalization period was deter-
mined to be significantly shorter in the SA group. We
determined that the operation time was longer in the GA
group, specifically, for longer durations of the stages of
process of preparation for GA, the period in intubation,
giving supine position to the patient in a longer time,
extubation time and post-operative waking. Also, we
observed that early mobilization of patients and starting
to eat earlier shortened the hospitalization periods.
Conducted as prospective randomized, in the study
with PCNL performed with spinal and general anesthe-
sia, visual analog pain score and early post-operative
analgesia need were found to be significantly lower in
the SA group.(7,11,12) In our study, the post-operative nar-
cotic analgesic need was determined as 33.4% in the
GA group 10.9% in the SA group and was found to be
statistically significant.
In the systematic compilation and meta-analysis com-
paring regional anesthesia and GA in PCNL, it was
shown that regional anesthesia offered many advantag-
es such as surgery time, hospitalization period, fluor-
oscopy duration, blood transfusion, post-operative pain
and analgesic requirements. However, it was reported
that the anesthesia method implemented had no signifi-
cant effect on the stone-free and complication ratios.(13)
There is a different application for classifying the com-
plications of PCNL. The most frequently used method
is the Modified Clavien Classification.(14,15) We used
MCC (Modified Clavien Classification) to evaluate the
complications in both groups in our own study. Head-
ache was the most frequently observed post-operative
complication in patients with SA.(16) Headache inci-
dence was between 0% and 25% in SA performed with
25-gauge injection.(17) 27–gauge injection was used for
SA in our patients. According to MCC, headache was
the most frequently observed group 1 complication in
the SA group (5.7%). In the study by Karakaş et al. it
was shown that pre-operative complication risk was
higher in patients with high ASA score.(18) In our study,
it was shown that potential pre-operative problems
could be minimized with SA in such patients. Basiri et
al. stated that intraoperative pain was excessive in pa-
tients with SA. Although the duration of operation is
short in this study, the presence of pain may be related
to the anesthesia block made.(19) Because with spinal
anesthesia you are doing a complete nerve block. We
have not encountered such a situation in our own work.
54 (4,9%) patients were very uncomfortable with this
position. But they did not feel pain.
In our study, we observed that SA cost was lower com-
pared to GA. Comparing the costs of the drugs and
consumables used for anesthesia, the mean cost in the
SA group was determined as USD 21.3 while the mean
cost in the GA group was determined as USD 83.6 (P
< .001). This cost difference was determined to be even
greater in patients with long operation times. Adding
to this cost the shorter hospitalization duration and the
fact that post-operative drugs are less in amount, we can
easily say that PCNL performed with SA is very effec-
tive in terms of cost.
There is a certain operation duration in operations per-
formed with SA. This duration is between 2-6 hours,
depending on the drug dosage. Therefore, if SA is to
be performed in patients with extreme calculi burden
or potential prolongation of the operation duration, then
epidural catheter should be mounted concomitantly.
Therefore, patients to use this method should be as-
sessed well and GA method should be preferred in un-
suitable patients. Of course, the experience of the sur-
geon and the anesthesia team performing the operation
is very important.(20) This experience has great impact
on the operation duration. Hypotension and pre-oper-
ative medication are the issues to pay attention most
during SA.
CONCLUSIONS
In this study we found that the stone-free rates were
similar in operations performed in both anesthesia
groups. However, operation duration, hospitalization
period, post-operative narcotic analgesic need and cost
were found to be significantly lower in the SA group.
In the light of this data, it was shown that PNL can be
performed more effectively, safely and with lower cost
using SA.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The authors report no conflict of interest.
REFERENCES
1. Fernstrom I, Johansson B. Percutaneous
pyelolithotomy. A new extraction technique.
Scand J Urol Nephrol. 1976;10:257-9.
2. Ramakumar S, Segura JW. Renal calculi.
Percutaneous management. Urol Clin North
Am 2000;27:617-22.
3. Lingeman JE, Matlaga BR, Evan AP. Surgical
management of upperurinary tract calculi. In:
Wein AJ, Kavoussi LR, Novick AC, et al.,eds.
Campbell-Walsh Urology. ed. 9th vol. 2.
Philadelphia: Saunders Elsevier; 2007:1431-
1507.
4. Mehrabi S, Shirazi KK. Results and
complications of spinal anesthesia in
percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Urol J.
2010;7:22-25.
5. Aravantinos E, Karatzas A, Gravas S, Tzortzis
V, Melekos M. Feasibility of percutaneous
nephrolithotomy under assisted local
anaesthesia: a prospective study on selected
patients with upper urinary tract obstruction.
Eur Urol. 2007;51:224-7.
6. Kuzgunbay B, Turunc T, Akin S, et al.
Percutaneous nephrolithotomy under general
versus combined spinal-epidural anesthesia. J
Endourol. 2009;23:1-5.
7. Singh V, Sinha RJ, Sankhwar SN, et al. A
prospective randomized study comparing
SA is a safe, effective and low-cost in PCNL-Solakhan et al.
Endourology and Stones diseases 249
Vol 16 No 03 May-June 2019 250
percutaneous nephrolithotomy under
combinedspinal-epidural anesthesia with
percutaneous nephrolithotomy under general
anesthesia. Urol Int. 2011;87:1-6.
8. Rozentsveig V, Neulander EZ, Roussabrov
E, et al. Anesthetic considerations during
percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J.Clin Anesth.
2007;19:351-5.
9. Trivedi NS, Robalino J, Shevde K. Interpleural
block: a new technique for regional
anaesthesia during percutaneousnephrostomy
and nephrolithotomy. Can J
Anaesth.1990;37:479-81.
10. El-Husseiny T, Moraitis K, Maan Z, et al.
Percutaneous endourologic procedures in
high-risk patients in the lateral decubitus
position under regional anesthesia. J Endourol.
2009;23:1603-6.
11. 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;38:504-11.
12. Karacalar S, Bilen CY, Sarihasan B, et al.
Spinal-epidural anesthesia versus general
anesthesia in the management of percutaneous
nephrolithotripsy. J Endourol. 2009;23:1591-
7.
13. Pu C, Wang J, Tang Y, et al. The efficacy
and safety of percutaneous nephrolithotomy
under general versus regional anesthesia:
a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Urolithiasis 2015 ;43:455-66.
14. de la Rosette JJ, Zuazu JR, Tsakiris P, et
al. Prognostic factors and percutaneous
nephrolithotomy morbidity: a multivariate
analysis of a contemporary series using the
Clavien classification. J Urol. 2008;180:2489-
93.
15. Tefekli A, Karadag MA, Tepeler K,
et al. Classification of percutaneous
nephrolithotomy complications using the
modified Clavien grading system: looking for
a standard. Eur Urol. 2008;53:184-90.
16. Zencirci B. Postdural puncture headache and
pregabalin. J Pain Res. 2010;3:11-14.
17. Turnbull DK, Shepherd DB. Post-dural
puncture headache: pathogenesis, prevention
and treatment. Br J Anaesth. 2003;91:718-29.
18. Karakaş HB, Çiçekbilek İ, Tok A, Alışkan T,
Akduman B. Comparison of intraoperative and
postoperative complications based on ASA
risks in patients who underwent percutaneous
nephrolithotomy. Turk J Urol. 2016 ;42:162-7.
19. Basiri A, Kashi AH, Zeinali M, Nasiri MR,
Valipour R, Sarhangnejad R. Limitations of
Spinal Anesthesia for Patient and Surgeon
During Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy.
2018;15(4):164-7.
20. Buldu I, Tepeler A, Kaynar M, Karatag
SA is a safe, effective and low-cost in PCNL-Solakhan et al.
T, Tosun M, Umutogluv T, Tanriover H,
Istanbulluoglu O. Comparison of Anesthesia
Methods in Treatment of Staghorn Kidney
Stones with Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy.
Urol J. 2016 ;13(1):2479-83.