Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluating outcomes of complete supine percutaneous nephrolithotomy for staghorn vs multiple non-staghorn renal stones: a 10-year study

  • Original Article
  • Published:
World Journal of Urology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate the outcomes of complete supine percutaneous nephrolithotomy (csPCNL) for staghorn stones and multiple large non-staghorn stones.

Methods

The records of 886 patients who underwent csPCNL from September 2009 to October 2019 were considered. Out of them, 201 cases met the eligibility criteria and they were divided into three groups: 63 cases of staghorn, 68 cases of multiple medium (20 mm < diameter ≤ 30 mm) non-staghorn and 70 cases of multiple large non-staghorn (> 30 mm) stones. Almost all outcomes and stone-related factors were analyzed.

Results

There was not any significant difference regarding age, body mass index, history of urinary tract infection, transfusion rate, complication rate, pre and post-surgery serum creatinine, hemoglobin drop and total hospital stay between the three groups. Stone free rate was 98.5% in multiple medium group, 97.1% in multiple large group and 84.1% in staghorn group (P = 0.001). The operation duration was significantly shorter for the multiple medium group (P < 0.001) but it was not significantly different between the multiple large non-staghorn and staghorn group.

Conclusion

The results demonstrated that almost all outcomes were not significantly different between the three groups (especially between staghorn and larger non-staghorn ones). These findings reveal that surgeons could choose csPCNL for treatment of staghorn stones and multiple large non-staghorn stones and consider staghorn stones as challenging as multiple large (especially diameter > 30 mm) non-staghorn stones.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig.1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Knoll T (2010) Epidemiology, pathogenesis, and pathophysiology of urolithiasis. Eur Urol Suppl 9(12):802–806

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Lingeman JE, Coury TA, Newman DM, Kahnoski RJ, Mertz JH, Mosbaugh PG, Woods JR (1987) Comparison of results and morbidity of percutaneous nephrostolithotomy and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol 138(3):485–490

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Preminger GM, Assimos DG, Lingeman JE, Nakada SY, Pearle MS, Wolf JS (2005) Chapter 1: AUA guideline on management of staghorn calculi: diagnosis and treatment recommendations. J Urol 173(6):1991–2000

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Eichel L, Clayman RV (2006) Percutaneous stone removal. In: Nakada SY, Pearl M (eds) Advanced endourology. Humana Press Inc, Totowa, pp 121–124

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  5. Sofikerim M (2008) Percutaneous nephrolithotomy: indications and technique. Erciyes Medical J Erciyes Tip Dergisi 30(1):30–36

    Google Scholar 

  6. Abdelhafez MF (2013) Residual stones after percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Med Surg Urol 2(2):1–3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Türk C, Petřík A, Sarica K, Seitz C, Skolarikos A, Straub M, Knoll T (2016) EAU guidelines on interventional treatment for urolithiasis. Eur Urol 69(3):475–482

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Healy KA, Ogan K (2007) Pathophysiology and management of infectious staghorn calculi. Urol Clin North Am 34(3):363–374

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Falahatkar S, Allahkhah A, Soltanipour S (2011) Supine percutaneous nephrolithotomy: pro. Urol J 8(4):257–264

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Vicentini FC, Perrella R, Souza VM, Hisano M, Murta CB, Claro JFDA (2018) Impact of patient position on the outcomes of percutaneous neprolithotomy for complex kidney stones. Int Braz J Urol 44(5):965–971

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Kaya E, Ebiloğlu T, Zor M, Yalçın S, Coğuplugil AE, Bedir S (2018) The outcome of percutaneous nephrolithotomy on≥ 50 mm staghorn and multiple calyceal stones. Turk J Urol 44(2):148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Falahatkar S, Moghaddam AA, Salehi M, Nikpour S, Esmaili F, Khaki N (2008) Complete supine percutaneous nephrolithotripsy comparison with the prone standard technique. J Endourol 22(11):2513–2518

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Li J, Gao L, Li Q, Zhang Y, Jiang Q (2019) Supine versus prone position for percutaneous nephrolithotripsy: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Int J Surg 66:62–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Falahatkar S, Mokhtari G, Teimoori M (2016) An update on supine versus prone percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a meta-analysis. Urol J 13(5):2814–2822

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Smith A, Averch TD, Shahrour K, Opondo D, Daels FP, Labate G, Croes Pcnl Study Group (2013) A nephrolithometric nomogram to predict treatment success of percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Urol 190(1):149–156

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Ortiz CT, Martínez AIM, Morton AJV, Reyes HV, Feixas SC, Novo JFS, Miranda EF (2014) Obesity in percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Is body mass index really important? Urology 84(3):538–543

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Sofer M, Tavdi E, Levi O, Mintz I, Bar-Yosef Y, Sidi A, Tsivian A (2017) Implementation of supine percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a novel position for an old operation. Cent Eur J Urol 70(1):60

    Google Scholar 

  18. El-Shaer W, Abdel-Lateef S, Torky A, Elshaer A (2019) Complete ultrasound-guided percutaneous nephrolithotomy in prone and supine positions: a randomized controlled study. Urology 128:31–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Kwon O, Park J, Cho MC, Son H, Jeong H, Cho SY (2017) Feasibility of single-session endoscopic combined intrarenal surgery for ipsilateral large renal stones and retrograde intrarenal surgery for contralateral renal stones: Initial experience. Int J Urol 24(5):377–382

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Wen J, Xu G, Du C, Wang B (2016) Minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus endoscopic combined intrarenal surgery with flexible ureteroscope for partial staghorn calculi: a randomised controlled trial. Int J Surg 28:22–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Inoue T, Kinoshita H, Okada S, Hamamoto S, Taguchi M, Murota T, SMART Study Group (2016) Wideband Doppler ultrasound-guided mini-endoscopic combined intrarenal surgery as an effective and safe procedure for management of large renal stones: a preliminary report. Urology 95:60–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Akman T, Binbay M, Akcay M, Tekinarslan E, Kezer C, Ozgor F, Muslumanoglu AY (2011) Variables that influence operative time during percutaneous nephrolithotomy: an analysis of 1897 cases. J Endourol 25(8):1269–1273

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Shohab D, Ayub R, Alam MU, Butt A, Sheikh S, Assad S, Akhter S (2015) Effect of body mass index on operative time, hospital stay, stone clearance, postoperative complications, and postoperative analgesic requirement in patients undergoing percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Turk J Urol 41(4):177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Banakhar MA, Al-Sayyad AJ, Mosli HA (2011) The effect of Body Mass Index on stone-free rate and operative complication rate of percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Curr Urol 5(1):18–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Said SH, Hassan MAAK, Ali RH, Aghaways I, Kakamad FH, Mohammad KQ (2017) Percutaneous nephrolithotomy; alarming variables for postoperative bleeding. Arab J Urol 15(1):24–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Keoghane SR, Cetti RJ, Rogers AE, Walmsley BH (2013) Blood transfusion, embolisation and nephrectomy after percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL). BJU Int 111(4):628–632

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Yuan D, Liu Y, Rao H, Cheng T, Sun Z, Wang Y, Zhu J (2016) Supine versus prone position in percutaneous nephrolithotomy for kidney calculi: a meta-analysis. J Endourol 30(7):754–763

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Meng X, Bao J, Mi Q, Fang S (2019) The analysis of risk factors for hemorrhage associated with minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy. BioMed Res Int 2019:8619460

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Kim HY, Choe HS, Lee DS, Yoo JM, Lee SJ (2020) Is absence of hydronephrosis a risk factor for bleeding in conventional percutaneous nephrolithotomy? Urol J 17(1):8–13

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Akman T, Binbay M, Yuruk E, Sari E, Seyrek M, Kaba M, Muslumanoglu AY (2011) Tubeless procedure is most important factor in reducing length of hospitalization after percutaneous nephrolithotomy: results of univariable and multivariable models. Urology 77(2):299–304

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Mazzucchi E, Vicentini FC, Marchini GS, Danilovic A, Brito AH, Srougi M (2012) Percutaneous nephrolithotomy in obese patients: comparison between the prone and total supine position. J Endourol 26(11):1437–1442

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Ehsan Kazemnezhad for his sincere help to choose proper statistical tests and explain their process for data analysis.

Funding

This study was supported by Urology Research Center of Guilan University of Medical Sciences.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Urology Research Center, Razi Hospital, School of Medicine, Guilan University of Medical Sciences, Rasht, Iran

    Reza Falahatkar, Tamkin Shahraki, Siavash Falahatkar, Samaneh Esmaeili & Parham Mashouf

Authors
  1. Reza Falahatkar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tamkin Shahraki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Siavash Falahatkar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Samaneh Esmaeili
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Parham Mashouf
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

RF: project development, protocol development, data collection. TS: project development, manuscript writing, data analysis. SF: manuscript writing, data management, protocol development. SE: manuscript editing, data analysis, data entry. PM: manuscript editing, data collection, data entry.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tamkin Shahraki.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

Ethics committee approval was received for this study from the ethics committee of Guilan University of Medical Sciences (IR.GUMS.REC.1399.243).

Informed consent

Written informed consent was gathered from all participants.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 1277 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Falahatkar, R., Shahraki, T., Falahatkar, S. et al. Evaluating outcomes of complete supine percutaneous nephrolithotomy for staghorn vs multiple non-staghorn renal stones: a 10-year study. World J Urol 39, 3071–3077 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-020-03563-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-020-03563-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation