ABSTRACT Purpose To compare the effect of general anesthesia (GA) and regional anesthesia (RA) on f-URS outcomes and surgeon comfort. Material and Methods The study was conducted between June 2017 to January 2018 and data collection was applied in a prospective, randomized fashion. 120 patients participated in the study and were divided into RA group (n=56) and GA group (n=64). Demographic, operative and post-operative parameters of patients were analysed. The end point of this study was the effect of two anesthesia regimens on the comfort of the surgeon, and the comparability of feasibility and safety against perioperative complications. Results The study including 120 randomized patients, 14 patients were excluded from the study and completed with 106 patients (45 in RA group and 61 in GA group). No difference was detected between the two groups in terms of preoperative data. During the monitorization of operative vital signs, 3 patients in RA group experienced bradycardia, and this finding was significant when compared with GA group (p=0.041). Additionally, 2 patients in RA group experienced mucosal tears and 1 patient experienced hemorrhage during the operation, but no complications were observed in the GA group (p=0.041). Postoperative surgeon comfort evaluation revealed statistically significant results in favor of GA group (p=0.001). Conclusions Both GA and RA are equally effective and safe anesthesia methods for f-URS procedures. However, RA group showed significantly increased likelihood of bradycardia and mucosal injury during surgery, and significantly decreased surgeon comfort during surgery.

ABSTRACT Purpose We aimed to compare the outcomes of supine and prone miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy (m-PNL) in the treatment of lower pole, middle pole and renal pelvic stones. Materials and Methods 54 patients who performed supine m-PNL between January 2017 and March 2018 and 498 patients who performed prone m-PNL between April 2015 and January 2018 were included in the study. Of the 498 patients, 108 matching 1: 2 in terms of age, gender, body mass index, American Association of Anesthesiology score, stone size, stone localization and hydronephrosis according to the supine m-PNL group were selected as prone m-PNL group. The patients with solitary kidney, upper pole stone, urinary system anomaly or skeletal malformation and pediatric patients (<18 years old) were excluded from the study. The success was defined as ‘complete stone clearance’ and was determined according to the 1st month computed tomography. Results The operation time and fluoroscopy time in supine m-PNL was significantly shorter than prone m-PNL group (58.1±45.9 vs. 80.1±40.0 min and 3.0±1.7 min vs. 4.9±4.5 min, p=0.025 and p=0.01, respectively). When post-operative complications were compared according to the modified Clavien-Dindo classification, overall and subgroup complication rates were comparable between groups. There was no significant difference between the groups in terms of the success rates (supine m-PNL; 72.2%, prone m-PNL; 71.3%, p=0.902). Conclusions Supine m-PNL procedure is more advantageous in terms of operation time and fluoroscopy time in the treatment of lower pole, middle pole and renal pelvic stones.