• C Palamara, N Abid, L Badet, E Boselli, and I Dominique.
• Service d'urologie, hôpital Edouard-Herriot, 69003 Lyon, France. Electronic address: palamara_corinne@hotmail.fr.
• Prog Urol. 2019 Jul 1; 29 (8-9): 402-407.

IntroductionSpinal anesthesia in outpatient urology is controversial (longer hospital stay, risk of urinary retention). The main goal was to evaluate outpatient spinal anesthesia and to compare 2 local anesthetics secondarily.MaterialMonocentric retrospective study including all patients undergoing surgery in urological ambulatory surgery under spinal anesthesia between December 2011 and May 2015, split into two groups according to the local anesthetic used: bupivacaine (BP) and chloroprocaine (CP). Quantitative variables were compared by Student's t-test, qualitative variables by χ2 test.ResultsSeventy-one (95%) out of the 75 patients included have been discharged the same day. Discharge was impossible in these cases: patient alone at home (1), bladder clot (1), JJ intolerance (1), delayed micturition (1). The mean duration of the procedure was 27±19min, the SSPI's was 55±31min, the stay's was 360±91min. A total of 45 patients (60%) received BP and 30 (40%) received CP. The mean residence time in SSPI was significantly reduced in the CP group (47±24min vs. 61±34min, P=0.04). One patient experienced urination delay in the BP group with no significant difference. No significant difference for the other criteria studied despite the mean age, which is higher in the CP group (P=0.02).ConclusionSpinal anesthesia is adapted to ambulatory urology, and does not increase the risk of urinary retention, especially with CP that would decrease the length of stay in SSPI compared to BP.Level Of Evidence4.Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.

36 keywords...

hide…