Andrés González-Arboleda 1, 2
, David Castañeda-Millán 1, 2, 3 
1 Unidad de Urología, Departamento de Cirugía, Facultad de Medicina, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Bogotá, Colombia; 2 Grupo de Investigación e Innovación en Urología, Facultad de Medicina, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Bogotá, Colombia; 3 Servicio de Urología, Servicios Médicos Especializados, Clínica del Occidente, Bogotá, Colombia
*Correspondence: David Castañeda-Millán. Email: dacastanedam@unal.edu.co
Objective: To characterize the safety profile of flexible ureterorenoscopy according to the type of anesthesia in a hospital center in Bogotá, Colombia. Method: A retrospective cohort study that included patients who underwent flexible ureterorenoscopy between January 2022 and March 2024. Postoperative (PO) intensive care unit (ICU) requirement, fever, uncontrolled postoperative pain, hospital stay, and readmission were analyzed. Univariate, bivariate and multivariate analyses were performed to compare outcomes according to the type of anesthesia. Results: A total of 139 procedures were included. The median age was 42 years; 57.6% were male and 42.4% female. Regional anesthesia was administered in 53.3% of cases. In the general anesthesia group, there were no PO ICU admissions; 1.5% developed fever and 3% experienced uncontrolled PO pain. The median hospital stay was 2 days. Readmission at 7 and 30 days post-procedure occurred in 6.1% of patients. In the regional anesthesia group, 2.7% required PO ICU admission, with no reports of fever or uncontrolled PO pain. The median hospital stay was 1 day, with readmission rates at 7 and 30 days of 10.8% and 9.4%, respectively. No statistically significant differences were found in PO ICU admission, fever, uncontrolled pain, or readmission at 7 or 30 days based on the type of anesthesia administered. Conclusions: Flexible ureterorenoscopy is a safe surgical technique regardless of the type of anesthesia used. No clinically relevant differences were observed in the outcomes of interest according to the type of anesthesia.
Content available only in Spanish.
Content available only in Spanish.
The editorial process consists of 6 stages:
1. Reception of the manuscript (indeterminate, depending on whether the author meets the requirements): its objective is to verify that the manuscript complies with the specifications of these instructions for authors and that the submitted documentation is complete.
2. Initial editorial review (maximum 5 business days): its objective is to corroborate the relevance, timeliness, originality, and scientific contribution of the manuscript, as well as the methodological and statistical soundness of the study. At this time, it will be submitted to an electronic plagiarism detection system. Derived from this, a rejected opinion may be obtained, or it will be sent for review by peer researchers.
3. Review by peer researchers (maximum 30 business days): the opinion of at least two experts in the area in question will be obtained, who will evaluate the technical and methodological aspects of the investigation.
4. Editorial review (maximum 7 business days): its objective is to make a decision based on the opinion of peer reviewers. The opinion can be rejected, major changes, minor changes or accepted. In the case of major or minor changes, it will be submitted again for evaluation by the initial peer reviewers.
5. Final edition (6 weeks): its objective is the technical and linguistic edition (and translation), layout of galleys, DOI assignment, and correction by the author.
6. Advanced publication: All manuscripts will be published ahead of print on the journal’s website as soon as they complete the editing process, until they are incorporated into a final issue of the journal.