Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy: Opinion – Supine Position

  • Cesare Marco Scoffone
  • Cecilia Maria Cracco


The issue of patient positioning for PNL has recently become a matter of discussion. Advantages and disadvantages of the traditional prone position are examined, in comparison with the pros and cons of the alternative supine positions. Once recognized that PNL has similar feasibility, efficacy, and safety from a urological point of view with both accesses, it becomes important to highlight the variety of relevant anesthetic complications that may take place in the prone position, especially during prolonged procedures. Since these events – although rare or anecdotal – often imply long-term or irreversible consequences, patients should be adequately informed that they are facing the risk of a heavy price in terms of human costs for treating a benign pathology such as urolithiasis by means of prone PNL. Therefore, considering safety from a wider point of view, in our opinion, supine PNL is preferable and advisable.


Prone Position Compartment Syndrome Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy Percutaneous Access Total Peripheral Vascular Resistance 
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.


  1. Addla SK, Rajpal S, Sutcliffe M, Adeyoju A (2008) A simple aid to improve patient positioning during percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 90:433–434PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Agah M, Ghasemi M, Roodneshin F et al (2011) Prone position in percutaneous nephrolithotomy and postoperative visual loss. Urol J 8(3):191–196PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Akhavan A, Gainsburg DM, Stock JA (2010) Complications associated with patient positioning in urologic surgery. Urology 76(6):1309–1316PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anusionwu IM, Wright EJ (2011) Compartment syndrome after positioning in lithotomy: what a urologist needs to know. BJU Int 108:477–481PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Atkinson CJ, Turney BW, Noble JG, Reynard JM, Stoneham MD (2011) Supine versus prone percutaneous nephrolithotomy: an anaesthetist’s view. BJU Int 108:306–308PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barak M, Putilov V, Meretyk S, Halachmi S (2010) ETView tracheoscopic ventilation tube for surveillance after tube position in patients undergoing percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Br J Anaesth 104(4):501–504PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cracco CM, Scoffone CM (2011) ECIRS (Endoscopic Combined IntraRenal Surgery) in the Galdakao-modified supine Valdivia position: a new life for percutaneous surgery? World J Urol 29:821–827PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cracco CM, Scoffone CM, Scarpa RM (2011) New developments in percutaneous techniques for simple and complex branched renal stones. Curr Opin Urol 21(2):154–160PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Daels F, Gonzalez MS, Freire G et al (2009) Percutaneous lithotripsy in Valdivia-Galdakao decubitus position: procedure for all seasons? J Endourol 23(10):1615–1620PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Duty B, Okhunov Z, Smith A, Okeke Z (2011) The debate over percutaneous nephrolithotomy positioning: a comprehensive review. J Urol 186:20–25PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Edgcombe H, Carter K, Yarrow S (2008) Anaesthesia in the prone position. Br J Anaesth 100(2):165–183PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ho JD, Dawes DM, Moore JC et al (2011) Effect of position and weight force on inferior vena cava diameter – implications for arrest-related deaths. Forensic Sci Int 212(1–3):256–259PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hoznek A, Rode J, Ouzaid I et al (2012) Modified supine percutaneous nephrolithotomy for large kidney and ureteral stones: technique and results. Eur Urol 61(1):164–170PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ibarluzea G, Scoffone CM, Cracco CM et al (2007) Supine Valdivia and modified lithotomy position for simultaneous anterograde and retrograde endourological access. BJU Int 100:233–236PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Miano R, Scoffone C, De Nunzio C et al (2010) Position: prone or supine is the issue of percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Endourol 24(6):931–938PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Papatsoris A, Masood J, El-Husseiny T et al (2009) Improving patient positioning to reduce complications in prone percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Endourol 23(5):831–832PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Rau CS, Liang CL, Lui CC et al (2002) Quadriplegia in a patient who underwent posterior fossa surgery in the prone position. J Neurosurg 96(1 Suppl):101–103PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 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
  19. Tempelhoff R (2008) An optic nerve at risk and a prolonged surgery in the prone position. Anesthesiology 108(5):775–776PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Wu SD, Yilmaz M, Tamul PC et al (2009) Awake endotracheal intubation and prone patient self-positioning: anesthetic and positioning considerations during percutaneous nephrolithotomy in obese patients. J Endourol 23(10):1599–1602PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of UrologyCottolengo HospitalTorinoItaly

Personalised recommendations