Pischetola Arianna, Jahrreiss Victoria, Traxer Olivier, Scarpa Roberto M, Esperto Francesco, Pietropaolo Amelia, Somani Bhaskar K
Faculty of Medicine, University Campus Bio-Medico of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
J Endourol. 2025 Sep;39(9):930-940. doi: 10.1089/end.2024.0772. Epub 2025 Jul 3.
To evaluate the indications and clinical outcomes of local anesthetic stenting in urological procedures, assessing its effectiveness, adverse effects, and patient tolerance. The systematic review was conducted in line with Cochrane and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis guidelines. MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register were searched up to September 2024 (PROSPERO-CRD42024596866). Studies with at least five patients, focusing on Double-J stent placement or exchange under local anesthesia, published in English, were included. Case reports, reviews, pediatric studies, and redundant older data were excluded. Data on study characteristics, patient demographics, procedural details, and outcomes, including success and complication rates, were extracted. A total of 1725 patients and 1873 ureteral units were included, with studies that varied in sample size (6-463 patients) and included both stent placements (77.6%) and exchanges (22.4%). The overall success rate for local anesthetic stenting was 89%, with failure rates averaging 11%. Of reported studies, complications were reported in 8.68% ( = 76), predominantly Clavien-Dindo Grades I-II (5.94%) and III-IV (2.74%). Lidocaine jelly was the primary local anesthetic, with adjunct pharmacological interventions in some studies. Fluoroscopic guidance was used in 86.3% of cases, and both flexible and rigid cystoscopes were employed. Cost analysis consistently demonstrated significant cost savings with local anesthesia compared to general anesthesia. Patient satisfaction and pain scores showed variability, with many studies highlighting minimal discomfort and a strong willingness among patients to undergo the procedure again. Local anesthetic stenting is an effective alternative to general anesthesia, achieving a good success rate with a low risk of major complications. Although it offers significant cost savings and patient satisfaction is usually high, it does highlight the need for careful patient selection and counseling.
为评估局部麻醉下输尿管支架置入术在泌尿外科手术中的适应证及临床疗效,评估其有效性、不良反应及患者耐受性。本系统评价按照Cochrane协作网及系统评价与Meta分析优先报告条目(PRISMA)指南进行。检索MEDLINE、CINAHL、EMBASE及Cochrane中心对照试验注册库,检索截至2024年9月的数据(国际前瞻性系统评价注册号:CRD42024596866)。纳入至少5例患者、聚焦于局部麻醉下双J管置入或更换且以英文发表的研究。排除病例报告、综述、儿科研究及冗余的旧数据。提取研究特征、患者人口统计学资料、手术细节及结局(包括成功率和并发症发生率)的数据。共纳入1725例患者及1873个输尿管单位,各研究样本量不同(6 - 463例患者),包括支架置入(77.6%)和更换(22.4%)。局部麻醉下输尿管支架置入术的总体成功率为89%,失败率平均为11%。在已报道的研究中,8.68%(n = 76)报告有并发症,主要为Clavien - Dindo分级I - II级(5.94%)和III - IV级(2.74%)。利多卡因凝胶是主要的局部麻醉药,部分研究采用了辅助药物干预措施。86.3%的病例使用了荧光透视引导,同时使用了软性和硬性膀胱镜。成本分析一致表明,与全身麻醉相比,局部麻醉可显著节省成本。患者满意度和疼痛评分存在差异,许多研究强调患者不适轻微,且强烈愿意再次接受该手术。局部麻醉下输尿管支架置入术是全身麻醉的有效替代方法,成功率高,严重并发症风险低。虽然它能显著节省成本且患者满意度通常较高,但确实凸显了仔细选择患者和进行咨询的必要性。