LAUSR

We read the article 'Regional versus general anesthesia for retrograde intrarenal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis' with interest. The authors include 6 articles of which five are randomised controlled trials (RSTs) and one is a retrospective study. The authors have made various observations based on the study including no difference in stone free rate (SFR), post-operative length of stay, visual analogue score (VAS) on 1st post-operative day and complication rates. However, neither the stone location nor the complications are mentioned in the study. Similarly, the type of regional anaesthesia (RA) used in these studies is not mentioned. Despite the lack of stone location, lack of robust methodology and bias in the RCTs the authors claim that RA demonstrated shorter operative time than general anaesthesia (GA). Although this might be true, but this cannot be concluded based on the study itself especially if the stone location is not known. Furthermore, the patients were all of ASA score