World Journal of Urology

, Volume 28, Issue 2, pp 239–244 | Cite as

X-ray-free percutaneous nephrolithotomy in supine position with ultrasound guidance

  • Abbas BasiriEmail author
  • Mehrdad Mohammadi Sichani
  • Seyed Reza Hosseini
  • Aliakbar Moradi Vadjargah
  • Nasser Shakhssalim
  • Amir Hossein Kashi
  • Mohammadreza Kamranmanesh
  • Hamidreza Nasseh
Original Article



Supine percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) has numerous benefits compared to the prone position, including lower anesthesia risk, shorter operating time, and better ergonomic position for the surgeon. It is also comparable to prone position regarding vascular and bowel injuries. This study was conducted to add some more benefits by omitting X-ray in PCNL in a supine position.


Nineteen consecutive adult patients underwent ultrasound-guided PCNL in supine position. All patients were placed under ultrasound guidance in supine position. The tract was dilated over a guidewire in a single shot technique under ultrasound guidance from anterior abdominal wall. Once the procedure ended, residual stone was controlled using ultrasound with anterior abdominal wall window. Residual stones less than 5 mm were considered insignificant. No X-ray was used in any setting of the procedure.


The pelvicaliceal system could be successfully approached in all patients. The posterior calices were the most common sites of entry. Mean (range) of operation time was 111 (70–180) min. Mean ± SD hemoglobin before PCNL was 14.0 ± 2.2 mg/dl, and after the procedure it was 12.3 ± 1.6 mg/dl. Only one patient required blood transfusion. Mean ± SD creatinine before PCNL was 1.03 ± 0.24 mg/dl, and after the procedure it was 1.11 ± 0.22 mg/dl. None of the patients suffered visceral injury. The total stone-free rate was 84%.


Even in our first report with limited experience, it seems that the efficacy of PCNL with ultrasonography in supine position is comparable to PCNL in prone position with fluoroscopy with no more complications.


Percutaneous nephrolithotomy Supine Ultrasound 


Conflict of interest statement

There is no conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    Kerbl K, Clayman RV, Chandhoke PS et al (1994) Percutaneous stone removal with the patient in a flank position. J Urol 151(3):686–688PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Shoma AM, Eraky I, El Kenawy MR et al (2002) Percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the supine position: technical aspects and functional outcome compared with the prone technique. Urology 60(3):388–392CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Clayman RV, Bub P, Haaff E et al (1987) Prone flexible cystoscopy: an adjunct to percutaneous stone removal. J Urol 137(1):65–67PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rana AM, Bhojwani JP, Junejo NN et al (2008) Tubeless PCNL with patient in supine position: procedure for all seasons?—with comprehensive technique. Urology 71(4):581–585CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    De Sio M, Autorino R, Quarto G et al (2008) Modified supine versus prone position in percutaneous nephrolithotomy for renal stones treatable with a single percutaneous access: a prospective randomized trial. Eur Urol 54(1):196–202CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wagner LK, Eifel PJ, Geise RA (1994) Potential biological effects following high X-ray dose interventional procedures. J Vasc Interv Radiol 5(1):71–84CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rao PN, Faulkner K, Sweeney JK et al (1987) Radiation dose to patient and staff during percutaneous nephrostolithotomy. Br J Urol 59(6):508–512CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Basiri A, Ziaee SA, Nasseh H et al (2008) Totally ultrasonography-guided percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the flank position. J Endourol 22(7):1453–1457CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Karami H, Arbab AH, Rezaei A et al (2009) Percutaneous nephrolithotomy with ultrasonography-guided renal access in the lateral decubitus flank position. J Endourol 23(1):33–35CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    de la Rosette JJ, Tsakiris P, Ferrandino MN et al (2008) Beyond prone position in percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a comprehensive review. Eur Urol 54(6):1262–1269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Falahatkar S, Moghaddam AA, Salehi M et al (2008) Complete supine percutaneous nephrolithotripsy comparison with the prone standard technique. J Endourol 22(11):2513–2517CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Desai M, Ridhorkar V, Patel S et al (1999) Pediatric percutaneous nephrolithotomy: assessing impact of technical innovations on safety and efficacy. J Endourol 13(5):359–364CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Francesca F, Felipetto R, Mosca F et al (2002) Percutaneous nephrolithotomy of transplanted kidney. J Endourol 16(4):225–227CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Baron RL, Lee JK, McClennan BL et al (1981) Percutaneous nephrostomy using real-time sonographic guidance. AJR Am J Roentgenol 136(5):1018–1019PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Desai MR, Jasani A (2000) Percutaneous nephrolithotripsy in ectopic kidneys. J Endourol 14(3):289–292CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Osman M, Wendt-Nordahl G, Heger K et al (2005) Percutaneous nephrolithotomy with ultrasonography-guided renal access: experience from over 300 cases. BJU Int 96(6):875–878CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hosseini MM, Hassanpour A, Farzan R et al (2009) Ultrasonography-guided percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Endourol 23(4):603–607CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Valdivia Uria JG, Valle GJ, Lopez Lopez JA et al (1998) Technique and complications of percutaneous nephroscopy: experience with 557 patients in the supine position. J Urol 160(6 Pt 1):1975–1978PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Duvdevani M, Razvi H, Sofer M et al (2007) Third prize: contemporary percutaneous nephrolithotripsy: 1585 procedures in 1338 consecutive patients. J Endourol 21(8):824–829CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    El Kenawy MR, El Kappany HA, El Diasty TA et al (1992) Percutaneous nephrolithotripsy for renal stones in over 1000 patients. Br J Urol 69(5):470–475CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ng MT, Sun WH, Cheng CW et al (2004) Supine position is safe and effective for percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Endourol 18(5):469–474CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Steele D, Marshall V (2007) Percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the supine position: a neglected approach? J Endourol 21(12):1433–1437CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Manohar T, Jain P, Desai M (2007) Supine percutaneous nephrolithotomy: effective approach to high-risk and morbidly obese patients. J Endourol 21(1):44–49CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Neto EA, Mitre AI, Gomes CM et al (2007) Percutaneous nephrolithotripsy with the patient in a modified supine position. J Urol 178(1):165–168 (discussion 168)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Zhou X, Gao X, Wen J et al (2008) Clinical value of minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the supine position under the guidance of real-time ultrasound: report of 92 cases. Urol Res 36(2):111–114CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Michel MS, Trojan L, Rassweiler JJ (2007) Complications in percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Eur Urol 51(4):899–906 (discussion 906)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Abbas Basiri
    • 1
    Email author
  • Mehrdad Mohammadi Sichani
    • 1
  • Seyed Reza Hosseini
    • 1
  • Aliakbar Moradi Vadjargah
    • 1
  • Nasser Shakhssalim
    • 1
  • Amir Hossein Kashi
    • 1
  • Mohammadreza Kamranmanesh
    • 2
  • Hamidreza Nasseh
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of UrologyUrology and Nephrology Research Center (UNRC), Shahid Labbafinejad Medical Center, Shahid Beheshti University, M.C. (SBMU)TehranIran
  2. 2.Department of AnesthesiologyUrology and Nephrology Research Center (UNRC), Shahid Labbafinejad Medical Center, Shahid Beheshti University, M.C. (SBMU)TehranIran

Personalised recommendations