Skip to main content
Log in

Anästhesie bei endourologischen und roboterassistierten Eingriffen

Anesthesia in endourological and robot-assisted interventions

  • CME Zertifizierte Fortbildung
  • Published:
Der Anaesthesist Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Zusammenfassung

Die verbesserte medikamentöse Therapie in der Urologie führt zu immer älteren Patienten mit entsprechender Komorbidität im OP. Gleichzeitig bieten sich neue operative Möglichkeiten durch verbesserte technische Geräte. Die Operationspositionen wie Bauchlage und Steinschnittlage führen zu physiologischen Änderungen, die die Anästhesieführung beeinflussen. Das Risiko von Eingriffen wie transurethrale Prostata- oder Blasenresektion ist durch aufkommende Neuerungen (z. B. Lasertechnik) verändert worden. Die Inzidenz des Transurethrale-Resektion(TUR)-Syndroms hat sich zwischenzeitlich verringert, dennoch muss auch heute an eine Einschwemmung von Spülflüssigkeit gedacht werden. Die roboterassistierte Chirurgie hat das Experimentierstadium bereits überwunden und findet zunehmend breiten Einsatz, sodass auf die neuen Anforderungen eingegangen werden muss. Die Ureterorenoskopie wird mittlerweile unter dem Einsatz flexibler, schmallumiger Endoskope immer häufiger erfolgreich auch bei Nierenbeckensteinen durchgeführt und kann in Analgosedation mit sehr kurzen Anästhesiezeiten vorgenommen werden. Bei der perkutanen Nephrostomie und Litholapaxie befindet sich der Patient häufig in Bauchlage. Im Hinblick auf die Risiken, die sich aus der Positionierung ergeben, sollte aber individuell die Durchführung in Rücken- oder Seitenlage erwogen werden. Eine gute präoperative Kommunikation zwischen Operateur und Anästhesist kann bei speziellen Indikationen ein Abweichen vom „Hausstandard“ ermöglichen. Fundierte Kenntnisse in der (Patho-)Physiologie der allgemeinen Anästhesie, erweitert um Kenntnisse der speziellen Krankheitsbilder der endourologischen Eingriffe, bilden die Grundlagen einer vorausschauenden Anästhesie, die das Auftreten von lebensbedrohlichen Zwischenfällen verhindern soll.

Abstract

The improved drug therapy leads to increasingly older patients with complex comorbidities in the discipline of operative urology. Today, improved technical equipment provides new operational capabilities in the field of urology. The prone and lithotomy position during surgery leads to physiological changes that affect anesthesia management. The surgical risk of procedures such as transurethral surgery of the prostate or bladder is being altered by laser surgery and other new technologies. Although the incidence of transurethral resection (TUR) syndrome has been reduced in recent years, the intrusion of irrigation fluid still has to be considered during anesthesia. Robot-assisted surgery has successfully completed the experimental stage and is widely used so that new targets have to be challenged. Ureterorenoscopy is performed with flexible, small caliber ureteroscopes which even allow treatment of renal calculi under analgosedation within short time periods. Percutaneous nephrostomy and litholapaxy are still frequently performed in the prone position. With respect to the risks arising from patient positioning, supine or lateral positioning should be considered in individual cases. A good communication between the surgeon and anesthetist allows deviation from daily routine procedures if special indications require a modified approach. In conclusion, a profound knowledge of the (patho-)physiology of general anesthesia and endourological diseases enables anesthetists to provide a prospective type anesthesia, which should prevent the occurrence of life-threatening incidents.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Abb. 1

Literatur

  1. Cybulski PA, Joo H, Honey RJD (2004) Ureteroscopy: anesthetic considerations. Urol Clin North Am 31(1):43–47, viii

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Malhotra V (2000) Transurethral resection of the prostate. Anesthesiol Clin North Am 18:883–897

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. O’Donnell AM, Foo ITH (2009) Anaesthesia for transurethral resection of the prostate. Contin Educ Anaesth Crit Care Pain 9:92–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Vijay MK, Vijay P, Kundu AK (2011) Rhabdomyolysis and myogloginuric acute renal failure in the lithotomy/exaggerated lithotomy position of urogenital surgeries. Urol Ann 3:147–150

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Atkinson CJ, Turney BW, Noble JG et al (2011) Supine vs prone percutaneous nephrolithotomy: an anaesthetist’s view. BJU Int 108:306–308

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Edgcombe H, Carter K, Yarrow S (2008) Anaesthesia in the prone position. Br J Anaesth 100:165–183

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Awad H, Santilli S, Ohr M et al (2009) The effects of steep Trendelenburg positioning on intraocular pressure during robotic radical prostatectomy. Anesth Analg 109:473–478

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Berges RR, Pientka L, Höfner K et al (2001) Male lower urinary tract symptoms and related health care seeking in Germany. Eur Urol 39:682–687

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Reich O, Gratzke C, Bachmann A et al (2008) Morbidity, mortality and early outcome of transurethral resection of the prostate: a prospective multicenter evaluation of 10,654 patients. J Urol 180:246–249

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Hahn RG (1996) Ethanol monitoring of irrigating fluid absorption. Eur J Anaesthesiol 13:102–115

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Hawary A, Mukhtar K, Sinclair A, Pearce I (2009) Transurethral resection of the prostate syndrome: almost gone but not forgotten. J Endourol 23:2013–2020

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Biester K, Skipka G, Jahn R et al (2011) Systematic review of surgical treatments for benign prostatic hyperplasia and presentation of an approach to investigate therapeutic equivalence (non-inferiority). BJU Int 109:722–730

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Berger J, Robert G, Descazeaud A (2010) Laser treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia in patients on oral anticoagulant therapy. Curr Urol Rep 11:236–241

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Dilger JA, Walsh MT, Warner ME et al (2008) Urethral injury during potassium-titanyl-phosphate laser prostatectomy complicated by transurethral resection syndrome. Anesth Analg 107:1438–1440

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Beers RA, Kane PB, Nsouli I, Krauss D (1994) Does a mid-lumbar block level provide adequate anaesthesia for transurethral prostatectomy? Can J Anaesth 41:807–812

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Gehring H, Nahm W, Baerwald J et al (1999) Irrigation fluid absorption during transurethral resection of the prostate: spinal vs. general anaesthesia. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 43:458–463

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Tyritzis SI, Stravodimos KG, Vasileiou I et al (2011) Spinal versus general anaesthesia in postoperative pain management during transurethral procedures. ISRN Urol 2011:895874

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Jo YY, Choi E, Kil HK (2011) Comparison of the success rate of inguinal approach with classical pubic approach for obturator nerve block in patients undergoing TURB. Korean J Anesthesiol 61:143–147

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Khorrami MH, Javid A, Saryazdi H, Javid M (2010) Transvesical blockade of the obturator nerve to prevent adductor contraction in transurethral bladder surgery. J Endourol 24:1651–1654

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Manassero A, Bossolasco M, Ugues S et al (2012) Ultrasound-guided obturator nerve block: interfascial injection versus a neurostimulation-assisted technique. Reg Anesth Pain Med 37:67–71

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Johnson GB, Portela D, Grasso M (2006) Advanced ureteroscopy: wireless and sheathless. J Endourol 20:552–555

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. D’Addessi A, Bassi P (2011) Ureterorenoscopy: avoiding and managing the complications. Urol Int 87:251–259

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Langen P-H, Karypiadou M, Steffens J (2004) Ureteroscopy under intravenous analgesia with remifentanil. Urologe A 43:689–697

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Hyams ES, Shah O (2009) Percutaneous nephrostolithotomy versus flexible ureteroscopy/holmium laser lithotripsy: cost and outcome analysis. J Urol 182:1012–1017

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Rozentsveig V, Neulander EZ, Roussabrov E et al (2007) Anesthetic considerations during percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Clin Anesth 19:351–355

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Valdivia JG, Scarpa RM, Duvdevani M et al (2011) Supine versus prone position during percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a report from the clinical research office of the Endourological Society percutaneous nephrolithotomy global study. J Endourol 25:1619–1625

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Wu P, Wang L, Wang K (2011) Supine versus prone position in percutaneous nephrolithotomy for kidney calculi: a meta-analysis. Int Urol Nephrol 43:67–77

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Kuzgunbay B, Turunc T, Akin S et al (2009) Percutaneous nephrolithotomy under general versus combined spinal-epidural anesthesia. J Endourol 23:1835–1838

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Singh V, Sinha RJ, Sankhwar SN, Malik A (2011) A prospective randomized study comparing percutaneous nephrolithotomy under combined spinal-epidural anesthesia with percutaneous nephrolithotomy under general anesthesia. Urol Int 87:293–298

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Mehrabi S, Karimzadeh Shirazi K (2010) Results and complications of spinal anesthesia in percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Urol J 7:22–25

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Aravantinos E, Kalogeras N, Stamatiou G et al (2009) Percutaneous nephrolithotomy under a multimodal analgesia regime. J Endourol 23:853–856

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Bolenz C, Gupta A, Hotze T et al (2010) Cost comparison of robotic, laparoscopic, and open radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. Eur Urol 57:453–458

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Ficarra V, Novara G, Artibani W et al (2009) Retropubic, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and cumulative analysis of comparative studies. Eur Urol 55:1037–1063

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Hong J-Y, Kim WO, Kil HK (2010) Detection of subclinical CO2 embolism by transesophageal echocardiography during laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Urology 75:581–584

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Servais D, Althoff H (1998) Fatal carbon dioxide embolism as a complication of endoscopic interventions. Chirurg 69:773–776

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Interessenkonflikt

Der korrespondierende Autor gibt für sich und seine Koautoren an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to T. Bluth.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kiss, T., Bluth, T. & Heller, A. Anästhesie bei endourologischen und roboterassistierten Eingriffen. Anaesthesist 61, 733–747 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00101-012-2047-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00101-012-2047-8

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Navigation