A Comparison of the Effects of General Anesthesia Versus Spinal Anesthesia on Catheter-Related Bladder Discomfort after Holep: A Prospective Trial

Main Article Content

A Ram Doo
Yu Seob Shin
Juhan Mun
Deokkyu Kim
Jong Kwan Park


benign prostatic hyperplasia, recovery, urinary catheter


Background and objective
Using an indwelling urinary catheter during lower urinary tract surgeries frequently leads to catheter-related bladder discomfort (CRBD) in the immediate postoperative period. The purpose of the present study was to compare the effectiveness of general and spinal anesthesia on CRBD in patients who underwent Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP).
Material and methods
This clinical trial included male patients who underwent HoLEP for benign prostatic hyperplasia. Forty-five participants were divided into two groups: general anesthesia and spinal anesthesia. The incidence and the severity of CRBD were assessed postoperatively for 24 h. The severity of CRBD was graded using an 11-point scale (0 = no CRBD, 10 = worst CRBD imaginable). Moderate to severe CRBD, having a score of ≥4, was treated with 1 μg/kg fentanyl incrementally every 5 min during immediate postoperative period, and the total consumption was compared between the two groups.
The overall incidence of CRBD 24 h following HoLEP was 80% in the general anesthesia group, which was significantly higher than that of the spinal anesthesia group (p = 0.017). The severity of CRBD was significantly lower in the spinal anesthesia group compared with the general anesthesia group postoperatively at 2 and 6 h (p < 0.001 and p = 0.005 respectively). Furthermore, opioid consumption was significantly higher in the general anesthesia group compared with the spinal anesthesia group (p = 0.009).

Spinal anesthesia has a CRBD-reductive effect compared with general anesthesia during the early postoperative hours following HoLEP.


Download data is not yet available.
Abstract 251 | PDF Downloads 63 HTML Downloads 11 XML Downloads 0


1. Eredics K, Wachabauer D, Rothlin F, Madersbacher S, Schauer I. Reoperation rates and mortality after transurethral and open prostatectomy in a long-term nationwide analysis: Have we improved over a decade? Urology 2018;118:152–7. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.urology.2018.04.032
2. Shin YS, Park JK. Changes in surgical strategy for patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia: 12-year single-center experience. Korean J Urol 2011;52: 189–93. https://doi.org/10.4111/kju.2011.52.3.189
3. Kim M, Shin YS. It’s time to take advantage of robotic-assisted simple prostatectomy in large benign prostatic hyperplasia. World J Mens Health 2019;37:374–5. https://doi.org/10.5534/ wjmh.180106
4. Xiaoqiang L, Xuerong Z, Juan L, et al. Efficacy of pudendal nerve block for alleviation of catheter-re-lated bladder discomfort in male patients undergo-ing lower urinary tract surgeries: A randomized, controlled, double-blind trial. Medicine (Baltimore) 2017;96:e8932. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.000000 0000008932
5. Kim HC, Hong WP, Lim YJ, Park HP. The effect of sevoflurane versus desflurane on postoperative catheter-related bladder discomfort in patients undergoing transurethral excision of a bladder tumour: A randomized controlled trial. Can J Anaesth 2016;63:596–602. https://doi.org/10. 1007/s12630-016-0600-7
6. Aono J, Ueda W, Mamiya K, Takimoto E, Manabe M. Greater incidence of delirium during recovery from sevoflurane anesthesia in preschool boys. Anesthesiology 1997;87:1298–300. https:// doi.org/10.1097/00000542-199712000-00006
7. Lee JH, Kim D, Seo D, Son JS, Kim DC. Validity and reliability of the korean version of the quality of recovery-40 questionnaire. Korean J Anesthesiol 2018;71:467–75. https://doi.org/10.4097/kja.d.18. 27188
8. Hu B, Li C, Pan M, et al. Strategies for the pre-vention of catheter-related bladder discomfort: A prisma-compliant systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Medicine (Baltimore) 2016;95:e4859. https://doi. org/10.1097/MD.0000000000004859
9. Fields A, Huang J, Schroeder D, Sprung J, Weingarten T. Agitation in adults in the post-an-aesthesia care unit after general anaesthesia. Br J Anaesth 2018;121:1052–8. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.bja.2018.07.017
10. Lepouse C, Lautner CA, Liu L, Gomis P, Leon A. Emergence delirium in adults in the post-anaesthe-sia care unit. Br J Anaesth 2006;96:747–53. https:// doi.org/10.1093/bja/ael094
11. Smith LM, Cozowicz C, Uda Y, et al. Neuraxial and combined neuraxial/general anesthesia compared to general anesthesia for major trun-cal and lower limb surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Anesth Analg 2017;125: 1931–45. https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0000000 000002069
12. Curatolo M. Regional anesthesia in pain manage-ment. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol 2016;29:614–19. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACO.0000000000000353
13. Mason SE, Noel-Storr A, Ritchie CW. The impact of general and regional anesthesia on the incidence of post-operative cognitive dysfunction and post-op-erative delirium: A systematic review with meta-anal-ysis. J Alzheimers Dis 2010;22(Suppl 3):67–79. https://doi.org/10.3233/JAD-2010-101086
14. Guay J, Choi PT, Suresh S, Albert N, Kopp S, Pace NL. Neuraxial anesthesia for the prevention of postoperative mortality and major morbidity: An overview of cochrane systematic reviews. Anesth Analg 2014;119:716–25. https://doi. org/10.1213/ANE.0000000000000339
15. Carlock KD, Hildebrandt KR, Konda SR, Egol KA. The use of regional anaesthesia for surgical intervention has minimal effect on functional out-comes following fracture nonunion repair. Injury 2019;50:671–5.
16. Broos PP, Stokmans RA, Cuypers PW, Egol KA. Effects of anesthesia type on perioperative out-come after endovascular aneurysm repair. J Endovasc Ther 2015;22:770–7. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.injury.2019.01.013
17. Shin YS, Doo AR. Managing postoperative cathe-ter-related bladder discomfort. J Anesth 2019;33:347. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00540-019-02619-3
18. Shin YS, Doo AR. Park HJ. The novel method to reduce catheter-related bladder discomfort after transurethral prostate surgery. World J Mens Health 2020;38:137–8. https://doi.org/10.5534/ wjmh.190069