Comparison of Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Renal Cryoablation With Sedation vs General Anesthesia

ObjectiveTo compare the efficacy and safety of local anesthesia with conscious sedation (LACS) with general anesthesia (GA) in patients undergoing percutaneous renal cryoablation (PRC) for renal cortical neoplasms.MethodsWe performed a retrospective review of patients undergoing PRC between 2003 and 2013. Patient demographics, tumor characteristics, and perioperative and postoperative follow-up data were recorded and analyzed. We compared 3 principal outcomes across the GA and LACS groups: anesthesia-related outcomes, treatment failure, and complications.ResultsA total of 235 patients with available data were included. Of these, 82 underwent PRC under GA and 153 patients under LACS. The 2 groups were similar with regard to age, gender, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, tumor features, preoperative serum creatinine level, and hematocrit value. The GA and LACS groups had a similar percentage of patients with biopsy-proven renal cell carcinoma (68.5% and 64.2%, respectively; P = .62). The mean follow-up time for GA and LACS was 37 and 21 months, respectively (P <.0001). The mean procedure time for GA was significantly longer compared with LACS (133 vs 102 minutes; P <.001), and the mean hospital stay was shorter under LACS (1.08 vs 1.95 days; P <.0001). There was no difference in immediate failure (0% and 1.9%; P = .051) or recurrences (11% and 3.9%, respectively; P = .051) between GA and LACS groups. There was no difference in intraoperative and postoperative treatment-related complications between the 2 groups.ConclusionPRC for small renal masses under LACS is effective and safe. PRC with LACS has the advantage of decreased procedure time and a shorter hospital stay.