Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery is equally efficient and safe in patients with different American Society of Anesthesia physical status.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and safety of Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery to treat renal stones in patients with different American Society of Anesthesia (ASA) physical status. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of 150 patients who underwent Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery for renal stone between October 2013 and December 2014. Patients were categorized into three groups according to their ASA physical status: ASA Class 1 (Group 1, n = 23), ASA Class 2 (Group 2, n = 113) and ASA Class 3 (Group 3, n = 14). We documented and stratified the per-operative and postoperative complications according to modified Satava Classification System and Clavien-Dindo Classification. RESULTS: The mean age of the patients was 44 years. The total stone-free rate was 81.2%. According to the groups, the stone-free rate was 75% in Group 1, 82.5% in Group 2, and 83.3% in Group 3 (p = 0.340). Per-operative and postoperative complications were recorded in 12% (n = 18) and 5.3% (n = 8) of the patients. We did not find significant difference in terms of per-operative and postoperative complication rates among patients with different ASA physical status (p(per-operative) = 0.392 and p(postoperative) = 0.136). CONCLUSIONS: Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery is an effective and safe surgery with high stone-free rates and low morbidity in patients with different ASA physical status.

Risk factors for early colonoscopic perforation include non-gastroenterologist endoscopists: a multivariable analysis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Bowel perforation is a rare but serious complication of colonoscopy. Its prevalence is increasing with the rapidly growing volume of procedures performed. Although colonoscopies have been performed for decades, the risk factors for perforation are not completely understood. We investigated risk factors for perforation during colonoscopy by assessing variables that included sedation type and endoscopist specialty and level of training. METHODS: We performed a retrospective multivariate analysis of risk factors for early perforation (occurring at any point during the colonoscopy but recognized during or immediately after the procedure) in adult patients by using the Clinical Outcomes Research Initiative National Endoscopic Database. Risk factors were determined from published articles. Additional variables assessed included endoscopist specialty and years of experience, trainee involvement, and sedation with propofol. RESULTS: We identified 192 perforation events during 1,144,900 colonoscopies from 85 centers entered into the database from January 2000-March 2011. On multivariate analysis, increasing age, American Society of Anesthesia class, female sex, hospital setting, any therapy, and polyps >10 mm were significantly associated with increased risk of early perforation. Colonoscopies performed by surgeons and endoscopists of unknown specialty had higher rates of perforation than those performed by gastroenterologists (odds ratio, 2.00; 95% confidence interval, 1.30-3.08). Propofol sedation did not significantly affect risk for perforation. CONCLUSIONS: In addition to previously established risk factors, non-gastroenterologist specialty was found to affect risk for perforations detected during or immediately after colonoscopy. This finding could result from differences in volume and style of endoscopy training. Further investigation into these observed associations is warranted.

Improved Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index scores on first postoperative night achieved by propofol anesthesia in patients undergoing ambulatory gynecologic surgery.

BACKGROUND: Sleep disturbance on the first postoperative night commonly develops for patients after day surgeries. The choice of either total intravenous anesthesia by propofol or total inhalation anesthesia with sevoflurane has become an issue for preventing sleep disturbance. AIM: To compare sleep quality on the first postoperative night for female patients after total intravenous anesthesia by propofol and total inhalation anesthesia with sevoflurane. METHODS: We enrolled 61 American Society of Anesthesia (ASA) class I-II outpatients who underwent minor gynecologic surgeries by either propofol or sevoflurane anesthesia. Sleep quality of the very night was assessed by the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) on the next day, and PSQI scores were compared by the Wilcoxon signed-rank test and paired t-test pre-operatively and postoperatively. RESULTS: For the propofol group, the mean postoperative global PSQI score (3.3 ± 1.3) was lower than the mean preoperative global PSQI score (4.9 ± 2.3) (P < 0.001); for the sevoflurane group, the mean postoperative global PSQI score (6.5 ± 2.8) was higher than the mean preoperative global PSQI score (5.5 ± 3.2) (P = 0.02). Eighty percent of patients receiving propofol anesthesia subjectively reported improved sleep quality, but only 17% of patients receiving sevoflurane anesthesia reported improved sleep quality. CONCLUSION: Sleep quality assessed by the PSQI is better improved in ASA class I-II female patients receiving propofol anesthesia other than sevoflurane anesthesia for undergoing minor gynecologic surgeries.