Does type of anesthesia during procedural management of suspected renal colic during pregnancy have an impact on preterm birth?
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.8886Keywords:
urolithiasis, pregnancy, anesthesia, trimester, preterm birthAbstract
INTRODUCTION: Anesthesia choice during the procedural management of suspected renal colic during pregnancy may vary based on available resources and patient or provider preferences, as there are no specific recommendations. Our objective was to evaluate whether preterm birth (<37 weeks) was associated with anesthesia type, anesthesia timing by trimester, or procedure type.
METHODS: We retrospectively identified pregnant patients who required procedural management with ureteral stent, percutaneous nephrostomy (PCN), or ureteroscopy (URS) for suspected renal colic based on laboratory and imaging findings from 2009–2021 at our center. Analyzed data included anesthesia type (local analgesia only, monitored anesthesia care [MAC], spinal anesthesia, or general anesthesia), trimester of procedure, procedure type, and obstetric outcomes, including preterm birth.
RESULTS: The study cohort included 96 patients who underwent 231 total procedures, including primary URS, PCN, and stent, as well as PCN and stent change. The median gestational age was 38.7 weeks (37.1–39.5), and preterm birth rate was 15.8%. The most common anesthetic used across all procedures and trimesters was MAC. PCN was associated with the use of less invasive analgesia or anesthesia, whereas endoscopic procedures were more commonly performed with spinal or general anesthesia. Using multivariable logistic regression, procedure type was associated with preterm birth, but not anesthesia type or timing by trimester.
CONCLUSIONS: Anesthesia type and timing were not associated with preterm birth, and selection may be influenced by resources, clinical scenario, or patient and provider preferences.
Downloads
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
You, the Author(s), assign your copyright in and to the Article to the Canadian Urological Association. This means that you may not, without the prior written permission of the CUA:
- Post the Article on any Web site
- Translate or authorize a translation of the Article
- Copy or otherwise reproduce the Article, in any format, beyond what is permitted under Canadian copyright law, or authorize others to do so
- Copy or otherwise reproduce portions of the Article, including tables and figures, beyond what is permitted under Canadian copyright law, or authorize others to do so.
The CUA encourages use for non-commercial educational purposes and will not unreasonably deny any such permission request.
You retain your moral rights in and to the Article. This means that the CUA may not assert its copyright in such a way that would negatively reflect on your reputation or your right to be associated with the Article.
The CUA also requires you to warrant the following:
- That you are the Author(s) and sole owner(s), that the Article is original and unpublished and that you have not previously assigned copyright or granted a licence to any other third party;
- That all individuals who have made a substantive contribution to the article are acknowledged;
- That the Article does not infringe any proprietary right of any third party and that you have received the permissions necessary to include the work of others in the Article; and
- That the Article does not libel or violate the privacy rights of any third party.






