It is essential to clearly define the indications for PNL according to established guidelines for the treatment of urolithiasis. A thorough preoperative workup should identify stone (size, location, composition and hardness) and patient features (including special situations like urinary malformations, skeletal deformities, paediatric age or pregnancy), in order to define the indication to the percutaneous approach and possibly find out the best candidates for the supine position.
Ureteral Stone American Urologic Association Preoperative Workup Stone Composition Flexible Ureteroscopy
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Preminger GM, Assimos DG, Lingeman JE et al (2005) Nephrolithiasis guideline panel Chapter 1, AUA guidelines on management of staghorn calculi: diagnosis and treatment recommendation. J Urol 173:1991–2000PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Denstedt J, Khoary S (2008) Stone disease. In: 2nd international consultation on stone disease. Health Publications (Editions 21), ParisGoogle Scholar
Worster A, Preyra I, Weaver B et al (2002) The accuracy of non contrast helical computed tomography versus intravenous pyelography in the diagnosis of suspected acute urolithiasis: a meta-analysis. Ann Emerg Med 40:280–286PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morcos SK, Thomsen HS, Webb JA (2001) Contrast media safety committee of the European society of urogenital radiology prevention of generalized reactions to contrast media: a consensus report and guidelines. Eur Radiol 11:1720–1728PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomsen HS, Morcos SK (2003) Contrast media and the kidney: European society of urogenital radiology (ESUR) guidelines. Br J Radiol 76:513–518PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aga P, Bansal R (2010) Is intravenous urogram no longer an imaging of choice for percutaneous nephrolithotomy? Indian J Urol 26:303–304PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mishra S, Sabnis RB, Desai MR (2012) Staghorn morphometry: a new tool for clinical classification and prediction model for percutaneous nephrolithotomy monotherapy. J Endourol 26:6–14PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tiselius HG, Ackermann D, Alken P et al (2001) Working party on lithiasis, European Association of Urology. Eur Urol 40:362–371PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teichman JM, Long RD, Hulbert JC (1995) Long term renal fate and prognosis after staghorn calculus management. J Urol 153:1403–1407PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meretyk S, Gofrit ON, Gafni O et al (1997) Complete staghorn calculi: randomized prospective comparison between extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy monotherapy and combined with percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Urol 157:780–786PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lingeman JE, Siegel YI, Steele B (2005) Management of lower pole nephrolithiasis. J Urol 173:469–473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Albala DM, Assimos DG, Clayman RV et al (2001) A prospective randomized trial of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and percutaneous nephrostolithotomy for lower pole nephrolithiasis: initial results. J Urol 166:2072–2080PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turna B, Raza A, Moussa S et al (2007) Management of calyceal diverticular stones with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and percutaneous nephrolithotomy: long term outcome. BJU Int 100:151–156PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shah K, Kurien A, Mishra S et al (2010) Predicting effectiveness of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy by stone attenuation value. J Endourol 24:1169–1173PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
El Nahas AR, El Assmy AM, Manour O et al (2007) A prospective multivariate analysis of factors predicting stone disintegration by extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: the value of high resolution non contrast computed tomography. Eur Urol 51:1688–1693PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar