Rickford J K, Speedy H M, Tytler J A, Lim M
St Thomas's Hospital, London.
Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 1988 Mar;70(2):69-73.
The results of a prospective randomised evaluation of general anaesthesia (GA), epidural anaesthesia (EA) and spinal anaesthesia (SA) for extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy are presented. GA provided speed and reliability but resulted in a high incidence of postoperative nausea, vomiting and sore throat. Both regional techniques conferred the advantages of an awake, cooperative patient, but EA required a longer preparation time than SA and more supplementary treatment with fentanyl or midazolam. A major drawback associated with the use of SA was a 42% incidence of postspinal headache. All three techniques were associated with hypotension on placement in the hoisl; bath immersion resulted in significant rises in blood pressure in the EA and SA groups and a more variable (overall non-significant) response in the GA group.
本文展示了对全身麻醉（GA）、硬膜外麻醉（EA）和脊髓麻醉（SA）用于体外冲击波碎石术的前瞻性随机评估结果。全身麻醉提供了速度和可靠性，但导致术后恶心、呕吐和喉咙痛的发生率较高。两种区域麻醉技术都具有患者清醒、配合的优点，但硬膜外麻醉比脊髓麻醉需要更长的准备时间，且需要更多地使用芬太尼或咪达唑仑进行辅助治疗。与脊髓麻醉使用相关的一个主要缺点是脊髓穿刺后头痛的发生率为42%。所有这三种技术在置于治疗椅时均与低血压相关；浴浸导致硬膜外麻醉组和脊髓麻醉组血压显著升高，而全身麻醉组的反应更具变异性（总体无显著性差异）。
