Advertisement

Prone PNL: Is It Still the Gold Standard? Review and Results

  • Thomas KnollEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

Conventionally PNL is performed with the patient in the prone position, and the present chapter reviews the “classic” standard technique in this position. Prone PNL has proven to be effective and safe in all situations, in spite of the potential advantages of the supine PNL. Its indications are identical in any position and can also be expanded, exploiting the advent of the mini-PNL approach. The option of simultaneous retrograde access makes supine position an interesting alternative for selected cases, although nowadays prone PNL can still be considered the gold standard.

Keywords

Prone Position Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy Lithotomy Position Stone Removal Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy 
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.
    Alken P, Hutschenreiter G, Günther R et al (1981) Percutaneous stone manipulation. J Urol 125:463–466PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fernstrom I, Johansson B (1976) Percutaneous pyelolithotomy. A new extraction technique. Scand J Urol Nephrol 10:257–259PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kim SC, Kuo RL, Lingeman JE (2003) Percutaneous nephrolithotomy: an update. Curr Opin Urol 13:235–241PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cracco CM, Scoffone CM, Poggio M et al (2010) The patient position for PNL: does it matter? Arch Ital Urol Androl 82:30–31PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    de la Rosette JJ, Tsakiris P, Ferrandino MN et al (2008) Beyond prone position in percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a comprehensive review. Eur Urol 54:1262–1269PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Scoffone CM, Cracco CM, Cossu M et al (2008) Endoscopic combined intrarenal surgery in Galdakao-modified supine Valdivia position: a new standard for percutaneous nephrolithotomy? Eur Urol 54:1393–1403PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cormio L, Annese P, Corvasce T et al (2007) Percutaneous nephrostomy in supine position. Urology 69:377–380PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Manohar T, Jain P, Desai M (2007) Supine percutaneous nephrolithotomy: effective approach to high-risk and morbidly obese patients. J Endourol 21:44–49PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sampaio FJ (2000) Renal anatomy. Endourologic considerations. Urol Clin North Am 27:585–607PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sampaio FJ, Passos MA (1992) Renal arteries: anatomic study for surgical and radiological practice. Surg Radiol Anat 14:113–117PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sampaio FJ, Aragao AH (1990) Anatomical relationship between the intrarenal arteries and the kidney collecting system. J Urol 143:679–681PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Aron M, Yadav R, Goel R et al (2005) Multi-tract percutaneous nephrolithotomy for large complete staghorn calculi. Urol Int 75:327–332PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Netto NR Jr, Ikonomidis J, Ikari O et al (2005) Comparative study of percutaneous access for staghorn calculi. Urology 65:659–662PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Muslumanoglu AY, Tefekli A, Karadag MA et al (2006) Impact of percutaneous access point number and location on complication and success rates in percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Urol Int 77:340–346PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ganpule AP, Mishra S, Desai MR (2009) Multiperc versus single perc with flexible instrumentation for staghorn calculi. J Endourol 23:1675–1678PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lahme S, Zimmermanns V, Hochmuth A et al (2008) Stones of the upper urinary tract. Update on minimal-invasive endourological treatment. Arch Ital Urol Androl 80:13–17PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lang E, Thomas R, Davis R et al (2009) Risks, advantages, and complications of intercostal vs subcostal approach for percutaneous nephrolithotripsy. Urology 74:751–755PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Schaeffer AJ, Handa SE, Lingeman JE et al (2008) Transsplenic percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Endourol 22:2481–2484PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lojanapiwat B, Prasopsuk S (2006) Upper-pole access for percutaneous nephrolithotomy: comparison of supracostal and infracostal approaches. J Endourol 20:491–494PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Fu YM, Chen QY, Zhao ZS et al (2011) Ultrasound-guided minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy in flank position for management of complex renal calculi. Urology 77:40–44PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Basiri A, Ziaee AM, Kianian HR et al (2008) Ultrasonographic versus fluoroscopic access for percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a randomized clinical trial. J Endourol 22:281–284PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Knoll TM, Michel MS, Alken P (2007) Surgical Atlas. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy: the Mannheim technique. BJU Int 99:213–231PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Osman M, Wendt-Nordahl G, Heger K et al (2005) Percutaneous nephrolithotomy with ultrasonography-guided renal access: experience from over 300 cases. BJU Int 96:875–878PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Watterson JD, Soon S, Jana K (2006) Access related complications during percutaneous nephrolithotomy: urology versus radiology at a single academic institution. J Urol 176:142–145PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Preminger GM, Assimos DG, Lingeman JE et al (2005) Chapter 1: AUA guideline on management of staghorn calculi: diagnosis and treatment recommendations. J Urol 173:1991–2000PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Tiselius HG, Ackermann D, Alken P et al (2001) Guidelines on urolithiasis. Eur Urol 40:362–371PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    El-Assmy A, El-Nahas AR, Madbouly K et al (2006) Extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy monotherapy of partial staghorn calculi. Prognostic factors and long-term results. Scand J Urol Nephrol 40:320–325PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Osman MM, Alfano Y, Kamp S et al (2005) 5-year-follow-up of patients with clinically insignificant residual fragments after extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy. Eur Urol 47:860–864PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Pearle MS, Lingeman JE, Leveillee R et al (2005) Prospective, randomized trial comparing shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopy for lower pole caliceal calculi 1 cm or less. J Urol 173:2005–2009PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Albala DM, Assimos DG, Clayman RV et al (2001) Lower pole I: a prospective randomized trial of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and percutaneous nephrostolithotomy for lower pole nephrolithiasis-initial results. J Urol 166:2072–2080PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lingeman JE, Siegel YI, Steele B et al (1994) Management of lower pole nephrolithiasis: a critical analysis. J Urol 151:663–667PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Nagele U, Schilling D, Sievert KD et al (2008) Management of lower-pole stones of 0.8 to 1.5 cm maximal diameter by the minimally invasive percutaneous approach. J Endourol 22:1851–1853PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Jackman SV, Hedican SP, Peters CA et al (1998) Percutaneous nephrolithotomy in infants and preschool age children: experience with a new technique. Urology 52:697–701PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Nagele U, Horstmann M, Sievert KD et al (2007) A newly designed Amplatz sheath decreases intrapelvic irrigation pressure during mini-percutaneous nephrolitholapaxy: an in-vitro pressure-measurement and microscopic study. J Endourol 21:1113–1116PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Knoll T, Wezel F, Michel MS et al (2010) Do patients benefit from miniaturized tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy? A comparative prospective study. J Endourol 24:1075–1079PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Lahme S, Bichler KH, Strohmaier WL et al (2001) Minimally invasive PCNL in patients with renal pelvic and calyceal stones. Eur Urol 40:619–624PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Bilen CY, Kocak B, Kitirci G et al (2007) Percutaneous nephrolithotomy in children: lessons learned in 5 years at a single institution. J Urol 177:1867–1871PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Mishra S, Sharma R, Garg C et al (2011) Prospective comparative study of Miniperc and standard PNL for treatment of 1 to 2 cm size renal stone. BJU Int 108:896–899PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Giusti G, Piccinelli A, Taverna G et al (2007) Miniperc? No, thank you! Eur Urol 51:810–814PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Li LY, Gao X, Yang M et al (2010) Does a smaller tract in percutaneous nephrolithotomy contribute to less invasiveness? A prospective comparative study. Urology 75:56–61PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    de la Rosette J, Assimos D, Desai M et al (2011) The Clinical Research Office of the Endourological Society Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy Global Study: indications, complications, and outcomes in 5803 patients. J Endourol 25:11–17PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Segura JW, Patterson DE, LeRoy AJ et al (1985) Percutaneous removal of kidney stones: review of 1,000 cases. J Urol 134:1077–1081PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Preminger GM (2010) High burden and complex renal calculi: aggressive percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus multi-modal approaches. Arch Ital Urol Androl 82:37–40PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Knoll T, Tasca A, Buchholz NP (2011) Treatment of small lower pole calculi–SWL vs. URS vs. PNL? Arch Ital Urol Androl 83:6–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Preminger GM (2006) Management of lower pole renal calculi: shock wave lithotripsy versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus flexible ureteroscopy. Urol Res 34:108–111PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Elbahnasy AM, Clayman RV, Shalhav AL et al (1998) Lower-pole caliceal stone clearance after shockwave lithotripsy, percutaneous nephrolithotomy, and flexible ureteroscopy: impact of radiographic spatial anatomy. J Endourol 12:113–119PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Srisubat A, Potisat S, Lojanapiwat B et al (2009) Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) or retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for kidney stones. Cochrane Database Syst Rev: CD007044Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Rana AM, Bhojwani JP (2009) Percutaneous nephrolithotomy in renal anomalies of fusion, ectopia, rotation, hypoplasia, and pelvicalyceal aberration: uniformity in heterogeneity. J Endourol 23:609–614PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Liatsikos EN, Kallidonis P, Stolzenburg JU et al (2010) Percutaneous management of staghorn calculi in horseshoe kidneys: a multi-institutional experience. J Endourol 24:531–536PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Stein RJ, Desai MM (2007) Management of urolithiasis in the congenitally abnormal kidney (horseshoe and ectopic). Curr Opin Urol 17:125–131PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Gross AJ, Fisher M (2006) Management of stones in patients with anomalously sited kidneys. Curr Opin Urol 16:100–105PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Bagrodia A, Gupta A, Raman JD et al (2008) Impact of body mass index on cost and clinical outcomes after percutaneous nephrostolithotomy. Urology 72:756–760PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Michel MS, Trojan L, Rassweiler JJ (2007) Complications in percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Eur Urol 51:899–906PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Clayman RV (2005) Supine position is safe and effective for percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Urol 174:601–602Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    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 60:388–392PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Scoffone CM, Cracco CM, Poggio M et al (2010) Endoscopic combined intrarenal surgery for high burden renal stones. Arch Ital Urol Androl 82:41–42PubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    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 54:196–202PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Tanriverdi O, Boylu U, Kendirci M et al (2007) The learning curve in the training of percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Eur Urol 52:206–211PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Valdivia JG, Scarpa RM, Duvdevani M et al (2011) Supine versus prone position during percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a report from the Clinical Research Office of the Endourological Society Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy Global Study. J Endourol 25:1619–1625PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag France 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of UrologyKlinikum Sindelfingen-BoeblingenSindelfingenGermany

Personalised recommendations