Advertisement

Ureteroscopy pp 217-232 | Cite as

Ureteroscopy: Patient Positioning and Room Setup

  • Joseph A. Graversen
  • Debra Morrison
  • Jane Cho
  • Adam Kaplan
  • Corollos Abdelshehid
  • Achim Lusch
  • Michael A. Liss
  • Jaime LandmanEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Current Clinical Urology book series (CCU)

Abstract

Proper room setup is a key component to the successful outcome of any surgical procedure. This is especially true of ureteroscopic procedures as these procedures are technology intensive and space is at a premium. A poorly positioned back table or piece of equipment can not only extend operative times but can also potentially endanger the patient, result in damage to expensive equipment, and can cause significant discomfort and inconvenience for the surgeon. Equally important, if not more so, is correct patient positioning. The ability for the surgeon to access structures of interest is solely dependent on patient positioning. Concomitantly, it is the surgeon’s responsibility to reduce or eliminate the risk of position-related injuries. In this chapter we discuss surgical suite ergonomics, room setup, X-ray positioning and safety, and choice of irrigant. We also discuss appropriate patient positioning in the dorsolithotomy and prone positions as well as associated complications.

Keywords

Peroneal Nerve Saphenous Nerve Anesthesia Machine Lead Apron Flexible Ureteroscope 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    van Deet MJ, Meijerink WJHJ, Hoff C, et al. Optimal ergonomics for laparoscopic surgery suites: a review and guidelines. Surg Endosc. 2009;23:1279–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kaya OI, Moran M, Ozkardes AB, et al. Ergonomic problems encountered by the surgical team during video endoscopic surgery. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2008;18:40–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hemal AK, Srinivas M, Charles AR. Ergonomic problems associated with laparoscopy. J Endourol. 2001;15:499–503.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Berguer R, Chen J, Smith WD. A comparison of the physical effort required for laparoscopic and open surgical techniques. Arch Surg. 2003;138:967–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Johnston 3rd WK, Hollenbeck BK, Wolf Jr JS. Comparison of neuromuscular injuries to the surgeon during hand assisted and standard laparoscopic urologic surgey. J Endourol. 2005;19:377–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Beurger R. Surgery and ergonomics. Arch Surg. 1999;134:1011–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wong SW, Smith R, Crow P. Optimizing the operating theatre environment. ANZ J Surg. 2010;80:917–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    McKenna JV. The case for motion and time study in surgery. Am J Surg. 1957;94:730–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Haramis G, Rosales JC, Palacios JM, et al. Prospective randomized trial of foot gel pads for operating room staff comfort during laparoscopic renal surgery. J Urol. 2010;  doi:10.1016/j.urology.2010.01.018
  10. 10.
    Graversen JA, Korets R, Mues AC, et al. Prospective randomized evaluation of gel mat foot pads in the endoscopic suite. J Endourol. 2011;25:1793–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Elkoushy MA, Shahrour W, Andonian S. Pulsed fluoroscopy in ureteroscopy and percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Urology. 2012;79(6):1230–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Shultz RE, Hanno PM, Wein AJ, et al. Percutaneous ultrasonic lithotripsy: Choice of irrigant. J Urol. 1983;130:858–60.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hull RD, Raskob GE, Gent M, et al. Effectiveness of intermittent pneumatic leg compression devices for preventing deep vein thrombosis after total hip replacement. JAMA. 1990;263:2313–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bailey JP, Kruger MP, Solano FX, et al. Prospective randomized trial of sequential compression devices vs low-dose warfarin for deep venous thrombosis prohylaxis in total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 1991;6(Suppl):S29–35.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hansberry KL, Thompson Jr IM, Bauman J, et al. A prospective comparison of thromboembolic stockings, external sequential pneumatic compression stockings and heparin sodium/dihydroergotamine mesylate for the prevention of thromboembolic complications in urological surgery. J Urol. 1991;145:1205–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Korkes F, Lopes-Neto AC, Mattos MH, et al. Patient position and semi-rigid ureteroscopy outcomes. Int Braz J Urol. 2009;35:542–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hunter PT, Hawkins IF, Finlayson B, et al. Hawkins-Hunter retrograde transcutaneous nephrostomy: a new technique. Urology. 1983;22:583–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lawson RK, Murphy JB, Taylor AJ, et al. Retrograde method for percutaneous access to kidney. Urology. 1983;22:580–2.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Grasso M, Lang G, Taylor FC. Flexible ureteroscopically assisted percutaneous renal access. Tech Urol. 1995;1:39–43.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sountoulides PG, Kauffman OG, Louie MK, et al. Endoscopy-guided percutaneous nephrostolithotomy: benefits of ureteroscopic access and therapy. J Endourol. 2009;23(10):1649–54.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Landman J, Venkatesh R, Ragab M, et al. Comparison of intrarenal pressure and irrigant flow during percutaneous nephroscopy with an indwelling ureteral catheter, ureteral occlusion balloon, and ureteral access sheath. Urology. 2002;60:584–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Landman J, Venkatesh R, Lee DI, et al. Combined percutaneous and retrograde approach to staghorn calculi with application of the ureteral access sheath to facilitate percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Urol. 2003;169:64–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Khan F, Borin JF, Pearle MS, et al. Endoscopically guided percutaneous renal access: “Seeing is believing”. J Endourol. 2006;20:451–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Akhavan A, Gainsburg DM, Stock JA. Complications associated with patient positioning in urologic surgery. Urology. 2010;76:1309–18.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Winfree CJ, Kline DG. Intraoperative positioning nerve injuries. Surg Neurol. 2005;63:5–18.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Warner MA, Martin JT, Schroeder DR, et al. Lower-extremity motor neuropathy associated with surgery performed in patients in a lithotomy position. Anesthesiology. 1994;81:6–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ubee SS, Manikandan R, Athmanathan N, et al. Compartment syndrome in urological practice. BJU Int. 2009;104:577–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Simms MS, Terry TR. Well leg compartment syndrome after pelvic and perineal surgery in the lithotomy position. Postgrad Med J. 2005;81:534–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Edgecombe H, Carter K, Yarrow S. Anesthesia in the prone position. Br J Anaesth. 2008;100:165–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Matsen 3rd FA, Winquist RA, Krugmire Jr RB. Diagnosis and management of compartmental syndromes. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1980;62:286–91.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Pearse MF, Harry L, Nanchahal J. Acute compartment syndrome of the leg. BMJ. 2002;325:557–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hutton M, Rhodes RS, Chapman G. The lowering of postischmic compartment pressures with mannitol. J Surg Res. 1982;32:239–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joseph A. Graversen
    • 1
  • Debra Morrison
    • 2
  • Jane Cho
    • 1
  • Adam Kaplan
    • 1
  • Corollos Abdelshehid
    • 1
  • Achim Lusch
    • 1
  • Michael A. Liss
    • 1
  • Jaime Landman
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of UrologyUniversity of CaliforniaIrvineUSA
  2. 2.Department of AnesthesiologyUniversity of CaliforniaIrvineUSA

Personalised recommendations