ORIGINAL RESEARCH article
Front. Surg.
Sec. Genitourinary Surgery and Interventions
Volume 12 - 2025 | doi: 10.3389/fsurg.2025.1595466
This article is part of the Research TopicPrevention and Treatment of Urolithiasis: Innovation and Novel TechniquesView all 11 articles
Prospective study of the efficacy of PCNL under local anesthesia based on the ERAS concept
Provisionally accepted- 1First Affiliated Hospital of Gannan Medical University, Ganzhou, China
- 2Department of Laboratory Medicine, Jiangxi Cancer Hospital, Nanchang, Jiangxi Province, China
- 3Yudu County Second People's Hospital, Ganzhou, Jiangxi Province, China
Select one of your emails
You have multiple emails registered with Frontiers:
Notify me on publication
Please enter your email address:
If you already have an account, please login
You don't have a Frontiers account ? You can register here
Objective: To evaluate the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of local anesthesia applied to percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) under Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) for treating upper urinary tract stones.This study was a prospective, single-center randomized controlled study in which the patients were randomly divided into two groups: 40 in the ERAS PCNL under local anesthesia (ERAS-LA) group and 40 in the ERAS PCNL under general anesthesia (ERAS-GA) group). The primary indicators were stone-free rate; the secondary outcomes were intraoperative and postoperative complications, intraoperative and postoperative VAS pain scores and postoperative stress response indicators. A meta-analysis was also performed using RevMan 5.4 software by searching relevant literatures in PubMed/Medline, Web of Science and Embase.Results: The stone clearance rates at 48 h were similar between the two groups (ERAS-LA: 85.0% (34/40) vs ERAS-GA: 87.5% (35/40), P=0.800) and both 90% at one month.The incidence of surgical complications was similar between the two group. The intraoperative pain score in ERAS-LA group was 2.90±0.74, and the postoperative 24-h pain score was comparable between the two groups (ERAS-LA: 2.65±1.35 vs ERAS-GA: 2.63±0.98, P=0.925), with good pain control. The mean total operative time was lower in ERAS-LA group than in ERAS-GA group (68.15±24.11 min vs 82.125±20.42 min, P=0.006). Postoperative hemoglobin change values (3.38±3.00*10 9 /L vs 5.22±4.18*10 9 /L, P=0.027) and stress response factors including C-reactive protein (8.39±7.46 mg/L vs 10.47±10.30 mg/L, P=0.035) and interleukin-6 (5.40±1.50 pg/ml vs 10.57±1.82 pg/ml, P=0.041) were significantly lower in ERAS-LA group. The mean catheter retention, fistula retention, and postoperative hospital stay were all significantly lower in ERSA-LA group than in ERSA-GA group (2.3%, 2.9%, and 5.08 days vs. 3.33%, 4.38%, and 6.35 days, P < 0.05). The results of the meta-analysis were similar to that of our study.Local anesthesia applied to ERAS-managed PCNL have a comparable stone clearance rates and complication rates, and a faster postoperative recovery, lower surgical stress, length of stay, anesthesia costs and hospital costs than general anesthesia.
Keywords: Percutaneous nephrolithotomy, rapid recovery surgery, Perioperative management, Local anesthesia, surgical stress reaction
Received: 18 Mar 2025; Accepted: 23 Apr 2025.
Copyright: © 2025 Liu, Yang, Huang, Zhang, Li, Wang, Luo and He. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
* Correspondence:
Zhaorong Liu, First Affiliated Hospital of Gannan Medical University, Ganzhou, China
Fengzhen Luo, Yudu County Second People's Hospital, Ganzhou, Jiangxi Province, China
Zhihua He, First Affiliated Hospital of Gannan Medical University, Ganzhou, China
Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.