Postoperative morbidity is similar in patients anesthetized with epidural and general anesthesia for radical prostatectomy. Effectiveness of local anaesthesia techniques in patients undergoing transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy: a prospective randomized study. [Clinical pathway "laparoscopic prostatectomy". Analysis of anesthesiological procedures in a randomized study]. Anaesthesia for transurethral prostatectomy Anesthetic Technique for Radical Prostatectomy Surgery Affects Cancer Recurrence: A Retrospective Analysis Comparison between two laparoscopic retropubic urethropexy. Intraoperative blood loss during radical retropubic prostatectomy: epidural versus general anesthesia. Combined general and epidural anesthesia with ropivacaine for renal transplantation. Neuraxial block versus general anaesthesia for cesarean section: post-operative pain scores and analgesic requirements. [Comparative study of general and spinal anesthesia in elderly women in hip surgery]. Comparison of general and regional anesthesia for cesarean section: success rate, blood loss and satisfaction from a randomized trial. Two techniques of laparoscopic retropubic urethropexy. Anesthesia for laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: is nitrous oxide contraindicated? Comparison of local anesthesia techniques during transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsies. [Efficacy of spinal anesthesia with small-dose lidocaine in ambulatory prostate biopsy procedures for elderly patients : comparison with propofol anesthesia]. Comparison of topical anesthetics and lubricants prior to urethral catheterization in males: a randomized controlled trial. Sedation as an alternative method to lessen patient discomfort due to transrectal ultrasonography-guided prostate biopsy.
OBJECTIVES To compare the effect of epidural and general anesthesia on the postoperative course and complication rate in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy . METHODS Ninety-eight men scheduled for radical retropubic prostatectomy ( RRP ) were r and omly assigned to receive epidural anesthesia only ( EA , n = 34 ) , combined epidural and general anesthesia ( EG , n = 33 ) or general anesthesia only ( GA , n = 31 ) . In the EA group , epidural anesthesia was induced and maintained with bupivacaine . In the EG group , patients received epidural bupivacaine after the induction of general anesthesia . In the GA group , anesthesia was induced with morphine and maintained with isoflurane . In the postoperative period , epidural patient-controlled analgesia ( PCA ) was maintained in all patients for 3 to 5 days . Patients were evaluated throughout the hospitalization period and at 3 , 6 , and 12 weeks following surgery . RESULTS The three groups did not differ with regard to postoperative pain , bleeding , urine output , fever , length of paralytic ileus , or length of hospitalization . No major cardiovascular , pulmonary , or neurologic complications occurred in any of the patients either perioperatively or in the first 3 months postoperatively . CONCLUSIONS Intraoperative anesthetic technique was not associated with a different postoperative complication rate in patients undergoing RRP . The very low incidence of complications and the uniform postoperative analgesic regimen may have contributed to the similarity between groups AIM This study was design ed to compare the effectiveness of intrarectal lidocaine gel versus periprostatic lidocaine injection during transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided prostate biopsy . METHODS Ninety men undergoing transrectal prostate biopsy from July through December 2004 were r and omized into three groups of 30 patients each . Before the biopsy , patients in Group 1 received 20 mL of 2 % lidocaine gel intrarectally ; patients in Group 2 received 5 mL ( 2.5 mL per side ) of 2 % lidocaine solution injected near the junction of the seminal vesicle with the base of the prostate ( along the neurovascular bundles ) , and patients in Group 3 ( control group ) received 5 mL ( 2.5 mL per side ) of normal saline injected along the neurovascular bundles . Pain level after the biopsy was assessed using a 10-point linear visual analog scale ( VAS ) . Results were statistically compared by the Wilcoxon Rank Sum test . RESULTS Patients in Group 2 had significantly lower VAS scores than those in Group 3 ( 3.6 + /- 2.1 vs 5.8 + /- 1.9 , P < 0.0001 ) , but those in Group 1 did not ( 5.5 + /- 2.7 vs 5.8 + /- 1.9 , P = 0.67 ) . Gross hematuria , rectal bleeding , and hemospermia occurred in 36 ( 40.0 % ) , 6 ( 7 % ) and 5 ( 6 % ) patients . One patient had temporary vasovagal syncope . No patient reported febrile urinary tract infection or urinary retention . CONCLUSIONS Periprostatic injection of local anaesthetic is a safe technique that significantly reduces pain during prostate biopsy , whereas intrarectal lidocaine injection did not reduce pain . This safe , simple technique should be applied in men undergoing TRUS-guided prostate biopsy to limit patient discomfort METHODS In this study we investigated the anesthesiological module of a clinical pathway . We chose the pathway of " laparoscopic prostatectomy " as an example for time-consuming minimally invasive surgery and 40 patients were r and omly assigned to 2 groups receiving either total intravenous anesthesia ( TIVA ) using propofol/ remifentanil or balanced minimal flow anesthesia using desflurane/ remifentanil . During this module the indicators of quality such as vigilance , pain , postoperative nausea and vomiting ( PONV ) and mobilization were measured . Costs were evaluated and analyzed by a bottom-up procedure . RESULTS There were no anesthesia-related deviations from clinical pathways and both forms of anesthesia management were equally well tolerated by the patients . No significant difference was observed regarding hemodynamic measurements or PONV . The patients in the desflurane/ remifentanil group recovered more rapidly ( p=0.037 ) and had more pain . The amount of analgesic agents given immediately following anesthesia was significantly higher than in the TIVA group ( p=0.017 ) . The median anesthesia costs per minute for laparoscopic prostatectomy in the propofol group were 2.79 EUR ( minimum cost 2.41 EUR , maximum cost 3.21 EUR ) and in the desflurane group 2.68 EUR ( minimum cost 2.45 EUR , maximum cost 3.39 EUR ) . The total anesthesia costs for both groups were within the proceeds matrix range for diagnosis-related groups ( DRG ) . However , the cost analysis for medication was slightly higher than the proceeds matrix range for DRGs . CONCLUSION Both forms of anesthesia can be implemented for time-consuming surgical procedures and allow a cost-effective anesthesia management . Anesthesiological procedures must go h and -in-h and with the type of anesthesia selected . The prophylactic use of analgetics for desflurane/ remifentanil anesthesia should be given earlier and in higher doses than in propofol/ remifentanil anesthesia . The prophylactic use of antiemetics following laparoscopic procedures of long duration is indicated . Optimizing anesthesiological procedures could lead to a continuous improvement in the quality of therapeutic pathways One hundred and fifty patients who presented for transurethral prostatectomy were r and omly allocated to one of three groups for the purpose of anaesthesia . Group A received spinal intradural analgesia , Group B general anaesthesia with spontaneous ventilation and Group C general anaesthesia with controlled ventilation . The comparability of the three groups was established Background : Regional anesthesia and analgesia attenuate or prevent perioperative factors that favor minimal residual disease after removal of the primary carcinoma . Therefore , the authors evaluated prostate cancer recurrence in patients who received either general anesthesia with epidural anesthesia/analgesia or general anesthesia with postoperative opioid analgesia .  Methods : In a retrospective review of medical records , patients with invasive prostatic carcinoma who underwent open radical prostatectomy between January 1994 and December 2003 and had either general anesthesia – epidural analgesia or general anesthesia – opioid analgesia were evaluated through October 2006 . The endpoint was an increase in postoperative prostate-specific antigen . Results : After adjusting for tumor size , Gleason score , preoperative prostate-specific antigen , margin , and date of surgery , the epidural plus general anesthesia group had an estimated 57 % ( 95 % confidence interval , 17–78 % ) lower risk of recurrence compared with the general anesthesia plus opioids group , with a corresponding hazard ratio of 0.43 ( 95 % confidence interval , 0.22–0.83 ; P = 0.012 ) in a multivariable Cox regression model . Gleason score and tumor size ( percent of prostate involved ) were also independent predictors of recurrence ( hazards ratios of 1.19 [ 1.08 , 1.52 ] , P = 0.004 , and 1.17 [ 1.03 , 1.34 ] for 10 % size difference , P = 0.01 , respectively ) . A similar association between epidural use and recurrence was obtained by comparing patients matched on the propensity to receive epidural versus general anesthesia . Conclusions : Open prostatectomy surgery with general anesthesia , substituting epidural analgesia for postoperative opioids , was associated with substantially less risk of biochemical cancer recurrence . Prospect i ve r and omized trials to evaluate this association seem warranted BACKGROUND To compare two different transperitoneal laparoscopic urethropexy procedures . METHODS In this prospect i ve r and omized open trial , 60 women affected by genuine stress incontinence were enrolled and r and omized in two groups of surgical technique . Group A was treated with transperitoneal laparoscopic retropubic urethropexy using non absorbable sutures , and group B with prolene meshes fixed with tackers or staplers . The failure rate was defined subjectively and objective ly . The subjective evaluation was performed asking the patients if they had urine loss and expressing the symptomatology using a visual analog scale before surgery and after each follow-up visit . The objective evaluation was performed with clinical evaluation and /or with the use of multichannel urodynamic studies . RESULTS No significant differences in intra- operative and postoperative complications between the two groups were observed . The subjective failure rate was not significantly different between the two groups at 3 , 6 , and 12 months from surgery . At 3 and 6 months follow-up , the objective failure rate was not significantly different between the two groups . Moreover , at 12 months from surgical procedure the objective failure rate was significantly lower in group A than in group B. CONCLUSIONS Transperitoneal laparoscopic retropubic urethropexy performed using sutures is more effective than the mesh technique OBJECTIVES There are conflicting reports on the influence of different anesthetic techniques , such as regional versus general anesthesia , on intraoperative blood loss . The purpose of this study was to eluci date the effects of anesthetic technique on intraoperative blood loss in men undergoing radical retropubic prostatectomy ( RRP ) . METHODS One hundred patients undergoing RRP for prostate cancer were r and omly assigned to receive either epidural anesthesia ( EA ) , combined epidural and general anesthesia ( EG ) , or general anesthesia alone ( GA ) .  Intraoperative blood loss was calculated by using a formula that accounted for the volume and hematocrit of the fluid suctioned from the surgical field , blood absorbed on surgical pads , and the patient 's hematocrit . RESULTS Mean blood loss in the EA group ( 1490 + /- 90 mL ; mean + /- SEM ) was significantly less than mean blood loss in both the EG group ( 1810 + /- 100 mL ) and the GA group ( 1940 + /- 130 mL ) ( P = 0.01 ) . Blood loss was not different between the EG and the GA groups ( P = 0.7 ) . Significantly less blood was transfused during surgery in the EA group ( 730 + /- 50 mL ) compared with the EG ( 960 + /- 60 mL ) and GA ( 950 + /- 70 mL ) groups ( P = 0.02 ) . CONCLUSIONS Similar blood loss in patients receiving general anesthesia , either alone or when combined with epidural anesthesia , implies that epidural anesthesia did not reduce bleeding , but , rather , that general anesthesia increased blood loss AIM To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of epidural ropivacaine anesthesia in association with light general anesthesia during renal transplantation and compare epidural and endovenous analgesia techniques for postoperative pain control . METHODS EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN prospect i ve r and omized study . SETTING Organ Transplantation Center , Department of Surgery , " Tor Vergata " University of Rome , St. Eugenio Hospital , Rome . PATIENTS 25 patients affected by chronic renal failure were enrolled in this study . Thirteen constituted the  combined epidural-general anesthesia group ( EPI-GEN ) , mean age 40.15+/-9.81 years ; while the others constituted the general anesthesia group ( GEN ) , mean age 46.75+/-7.45 years . Operation : cadaveric renal transplantation . Group EPI-GEN : epidural anesthesia performed with 12 - 15 ml of a ropivacaine 0.75 % and fentanyl 5 microg/ml solution followed by light intravenous or inhalatory general anesthesia and postoperative epidural analgesia with ropivacaine 0.2 % and fentanyl 2 mg/ml . Group GEN : inhalatory or intravenous general anesthesia and intravenous tramadol postoperative analgesia . MEASUREMENTS hemo-dynamics , renal function , arterial blood gases analysis , acid-base balance and postoperative pain data was collected and examined . RESULTS Postoperative epidural analgesia result ed significantly more effective than intravenous tramadol . PaO(2)/FiO(2 ) ratio was significantly higher in group EPI-GEN patients both on awakening and throughout postoperative observation . Hemodynamics and renal function did not appear to differ significantly . CONCLUSION Combined epidural-general anesthesia is as valid a technique as any for renal transplantation ; however postoperative epidural ropivacaine analgesia result ed more effective than intravenous tramadol . Respiratory function appeared less affected , facilitating a fast and uncomplicated postoperative recovery OBJECTIVE To evaluate the suitability of spinal and general anaesthesia for cesarean section . METHODS The prospect i ve , double-blinded study , done between March and December 2009 , at Central Education and Research Hospital , Erzurum , Turkey , involved 60 patients undergoing elective cesarean surgery .  They were grouped according to the kind of anaesthesia , with each group having 30 patients each . Postoperative pain scores , opioid requirement , side effects and patient satisfaction were compared through statistical analysis using SPSS version 10 . RESULTS Patient demographics were similar in both groups . Patients in the general anaesthesia group consumed 638.4 + /- 179.10 microg fentanyl , while patients in the spinal anaesthesia group consumed 356.3 + /- 87.1 microg . The number of patients requiring opioid via Patient Controlled Analgesia in the first 24 hours was significantly higher in the general anaesthesia group . Patient satisfaction was significantly higher in the spinal anaesthesia group . CONCLUSION Type of anaesthesia for elective cesarean section is important to provide sufficient post-operative analgesia and patient satisfaction The choice between regional versus general anaesthesia for elderly patients undergoing hip surgery is debated . It is vitally important to see if the type of anaesthetic administered affects per- and postoperative morbidity and mortality .  Seventy women more than 75 yr old suitable for spinal anaesthesia were included in this study . They were r and omly divided into two groups : in one ( n = 35 ) , general anaesthesia was given with sodium thiopentone , fentanyl , enflurane and vecuronium ; in the other ( n = 35 ) , spinal anaesthesia was performed with 3 ml 0.5 % bupivacaine in isobaric solution . During the anaesthetic period , there were no statistically significant differences between both groups in systolic arterial pressure falls or in increases in the heart rate X systolic arterial pressure product . No serious cardiovascular collapse was encountered . Seven patients ( 20 % ) receiving general anaesthesia had mental changes against four only ( 14.2 % ) in the spinal group . In patients having general anaesthesia , 22.9 % developed bronchopneumonia as opposed to 8.6 % in the spinal anaesthesia group ( p less than 0.05 ) . The mortality rate at three months was rather similar in the two groups . It was concluded that , in order to reduce the incidence of postoperative central dysfunction and bronchopneumonia , spinal anaesthesia should be preferred in geriatric patients for lower limb surgery OBJECTIVE A prospect i ve r and omized trial was organized to compare the effectiveness of general and regional anesthesia for cesarean section ( C/S ) . METHOD Three hundred and forty-one patients were r and omized into the general anesthesia group ( GA ) , epidural anesthesia group ( EA ) and spinal anesthesia group ( SA ) . The effectiveness of interest was success rate , blood loss and patient satisfaction . RESULT We found that the success rates of EA and SA were lower than GA . Success in EA should be improved by using an epidural catheter to add more local anesthetic drug instead of a single shot ; and the surgeon should allow more time for the block to work adequately . Success in SA should be improved by using bupivacaine instead of lidocaine . GA result ed in significantly more blood loss , lower postoperative hematocrit , and higher proportion of patients who had postoperative hematocrit < 30 per cent than EA and SA . The patients ' satisfaction scores were not different among the 3 techniques . This meant that , given adequate explanation and perioperative care , Thai women were satisfied with regional anesthesia . CONCLUSION Regional anesthesia is a better choice of anesthesia for C/S than general anesthesia . However , the availability of different techniques and ability to change the technique when needed were very useful and important . If GA is chosen , all safety procedures must be followed . Oxygen supplement and endotracheal intubation facilities must be available in all techniques . Guidelines of anesthesia for C/S at a national level should be agreed upon , including the type of personnel , monitoring equipment and postoperative care STUDY OBJECTIVE To compare two techniques of transperitoneal laparoscopic urethropexy . DESIGN Prospect i ve , r and omized , open trial ( Canadian Task Force classification I ) . SETTING University-affiliated department of gynecology and obstetrics . PATIENTS Sixty women with genuine stress incontinence . INTERVENTIONS Transperitoneal laparoscopic retropubic urethropexy using nonabsorbable sutures ( group A ) and polypropylene mesh fixed with tacks or staples ( group B ) . MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS Failure was assessed subjectively and objective ly . Subjective evaluation was performed asking patients if they had urine loss and having them describe symptomatology on a visual analog scale before surgery and at each follow-up visit . Objective evaluation was by clinical examination and /or multichannel urodynamic studies . No significant differences in intraoperative and postoperative complications were observed between groups . The subjective failure rate was not significantly different between groups 3 , 6 , and 12 months after surgery . At 3 and 6 months the objective failure rate was not significantly different ; however , at 12 months it was significantly lower in group A than in group B. CONCLUSION Transperitoneal laparoscopic retropubic urethropexy is more effective with sutures than with mesh PURPOSE We performed this study to test the hypothesis that nitrous oxide produces clinical ly significant bowel distention during laparoscopic abdominal surgery . MATERIAL S AND METHODS Laparoscopic kidney donors were r and omized into 2 groups . Group 1 received N2O and oxygen inhalation through anesthesia , and group 2 received a mixture of air and oxygen . All patients received the same preanesthetic and anesthetic medications . The surgeon was blinded to the use of N2O . The surgeon was given the option to discontinue N2O use ( if it was used ) if he/she thought that the bowel distention was increasing surgical risk . Postoperative data were collected on bowel symptoms , pain and recovery . RESULTS A total of 28 patients were enrolled in the study , 12 of whom received N2O ( group 1 ) and 16 who did not receive N2O ( group 2 ) . Mild to moderate bowel distention was reported by the surgeons in 6 patients ( 50 % ) in group 1 and 1 patient only in group 2 ( 6 % , p=0.007 ) . Severe bowel distention was encountered in 4 patients , 3 of whom received N2O ( 25 % of group 1 ) . Nausea and vomiting on postoperative day 1 was reported by 50 % of patients in group 1 and 25 % of group 2 . There was no difference in the pain scores between the 2 groups . No intraoperative or postoperative complications were encountered . CONCLUSIONS The use of N2O anesthetic causes bowel distention in 50 % of abdominal laparoscopic donor nephrectomy operations . The distention was severe enough to interfere with the progress of surgery in 25 % of cases and the use of N2O had to be discontinued OBJECTIVES To compare the effectiveness of periprostatic nerve blockade versus intrarectal lidocaine during transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsies . METHODS A prospect i ve r and omized study was performed on 150 men requiring biopsy of the prostate . Patients were assigned to three groups : group 1 received no anesthetic , group 2 received 10 mL of 2 % lidocaine gel intrarectally , and group 3 received a periprostatic injection of 5 mL of 1 % lidocaine solution before undergoing prostate biopsy . Patients were asked to respond to a preprocedural and postprocedural question naire that consisted of four questions design ed to evaluate pain perception and pain experienced , respectively , during the entire procedure . RESULTS The mean pain scores , comparing responses from groups 2 ( topical lidocaine ) and 3 ( periprostatic ) individually with those from group 1 ( control ) , were not statistically different for any of the preprocedural questions . The postprocedural pain scores were significantly lower in groups 2 and 3 compared with those from group 1 ( control ) for overall procedure impression ( 3.1 + /- 1.7 and 2.6 + /- 1.8 versus 3.8 + /- 1.8 , respectively ; P < 0.05 for both ) . The postprocedural scores for probe insertion were significantly lower for the topical group than for the control group ( 2.2 + /- 1.7 versus 3.7 + /- 2.1 , P < 0.05 ) but not for the periprostatic group compared with the control group ( 3.0 + /- 1.9 , P = 0.14 ) . The biopsy postprocedural scores were significantly lower for the periprostatic group than for the control group ( 2.8 + /- 1.9 versus 4.3 + /- 1.7 , P < 0.05 ) . CONCLUSIONS Our data confirm that both techniques of local anesthesia are effective in reducing patient discomfort ; however , periprostatic nerve blockade using injectable lidocaine appears to be more specific in reducing pain during the biopsy portion of the procedure BACKGROUND Opinions differ as to what is more appropriate anesthetic technique for elderly patients undergoing ambulatory surgery . The objective of this study is to compare the efficacy and safety of spinal anesthesia with small-dose lidocaine and those of propofol general anesthesia in elderly patients undergoing ambulatory prostate biopsy . METHODS Eighty ASA physical status I x II patients aged older than 65 year were r and omized to receive either spinal anesthesia with 1 % hyperbaric lidocaine 1 ml ( 10 mg ) ( group L ) or general anesthesia with 1.0 mg x kg(-1 ) of propofol injected at 180 mg x kg(-1 ) x hr(-1 ) followed by continuous infusion at 8 mg x kg(-1 ) x hr(-1 ) ( group P ) . RESULTS Significantly higher incidences of intraoperative hypotension and respiratory depression were found in the group P compared with the group L ( P < 0.05 ) . There were no major postoperative side effects , including transient neurologic symptoms and delirious sate , in either group . Both anesthetic techniques result ed in a high rate of patient satisfaction . Total perioperative costs were significantly lower in the group L compared with the group P ( P < 0.01 ) . CONCLUSIONS Spinal anesthesia with 10 mg of hyperbaric 1 % lidocaine may be more preferable to propofol anesthesia in elderly patiens undergoing ambulatory prostate biopsy , with respect to safety and costs UNLABELLED Although male urethral catheterization in the emergency department ( ED ) is both common and painful , few studies have evaluated the use of topical anesthesia prior to catheterization . OBJECTIVES To determine whether pretreatment of the urethra with topical lidocaine reduces the pain associated with urethral catheterization . METHODS This was a prospect i ve , double-blind , r and omized clinical trial of 36 alert , cooperative male adult patients requiring urethral catheterization , without allergies to the study medications or contraindications to their use , from a suburban university-based ED . Patients in the experimental group had topical lidocaine 2 % gel injected in their urethras , whereas control patients received intraurethral lubrication only . St and ardized catheterization with a no. 16 Foley was performed followed by pain assessment . The primary outcome measured was pain of catheterization on a 100-mm visual analog scale . Other outcomes included ease of insertion and procedural bleeding . RESULTS The authors evaluated 36 patients evenly distributed between study groups . Mean age was 62 years ( range 22 - 85 ) . Compared with controls , patients pretreated with lidocaine experienced significantly less pain of catheterization ( 38 + /- 28 mm vs. 58 + /- 30 mm ; mean difference 20 mm ; 95 % confidence interval [ 95 % CI ] = 0.4 to 32 ; p = 0.04 ) and less pain of injection ( 23 + /- 17 mm vs. 40 + /- 25 mm ; mean difference 17 mm ; 95 % CI = 3 to 32 mm ; p = 0.02 ) . There were no differences in the number of attempts and incidence of adverse events between the groups . CONCLUSIONS Use of topical lidocaine gel reduces the pain associated with male urethral catheterization in comparison with topical lubricants only BACKGROUND Despite being highly efficient for the relief of patient discomfort due to transrectal ultrasound ( TRUS ) guided prostate biopsy , periprostatic anesthesia is occasionally reported to be of limited use . We aim ed to evaluate the efficacy of conscious sedation , an accepted method for lessening patient discomfort due to interventional radiological procedures and compare it with periprostatic anesthesia . METHODS 93 c and i date s for biopsy were r and omised to three groups : group 1 ( n = 31 ) received intravenous midazolam , group 2 ( n = 31 ) received periprostatic lidocaine injection , whereas group 3 ( n = 31 ) received no anesthetic before the procedure . After the biopsy patients were asked to express discomfort by visual anologue scale ( VAS ) . RESULTS The mean scores for groups 1 and 2 were significantly lower than that of group 3 ( 1.4 + /- 1.1 and 2.0 + /- 1.5 versus 4.7 + /- 1.6 , respectively ; p < 0.05 for both ) . For patients with VAS scores exceeding 4 ( moderate to severe discomfort ) , a significant difference was calculated between groups 1 and 2 ( 3 % versus 29 % , p < 0.05 ) and between each and group 3 ( 3 % and 29 % versus 80 % , respectively ; p < 0.05 for each ) . CONCLUSIONS Sedation is an alternative for increasing patient comfort during TRUS-guided prostate biopsy , especially in clinical situations like patient anxiety , young age , repeat biopsies or inflammatory anal diseases
At the moment , the evidence available can not prove that neuraxial anesthesia is more effective and safer than general anesthesia for urological surgery .
There were insufficient data to pool the results relating to mortality , stroke , myocardial infa rct ion , length of hospitalization , quality of life , degree of satisfaction , postoperative cognitive dysfunction and blood transfusion requirements
CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE Choosing the best anesthetic technique for urological surgery with the aim of mortality reduction remains controversial .
The objective here was to compare the effectiveness and safety of neuraxial anesthesia versus general anesthesia for urological surgery .