Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Kidney displacement in complete supine PCNL is lower than prone PCNL

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Urological Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

To compare the amount of the kidney displacement in the complete supine percutaneous nephrolithotripsy (PCNL) to the prone PCNL during getting renal access. Thirty-three patients were randomly divided into two groups. The patients in group A were placed in the complete supine position and the patients in group B in the prone position. Amounts of the kidney displacement in three states and other data were analyzed. The mean amount of the kidney displacement in the complete supine PCNL was 10.1 ± 7.9 mm in stage 1, 10.7 ± 8.28 mm in stage 2 and 12.2 ± 10.4 mm in stage 3. The mean amount of the kidney displacement in prone PCNL was 16.6 ± 5.8 mm in stage 1, 16.2 ± 6.3 mm in stage 2 and 17.6 ± 6.7 mm in stage 3. In stages 1 and 2, a significant difference between the two groups derived from the mean amount of the kidney displacement, but the difference was not statistically significant in stage 3. Adjusted for age, gender, BMI, stone burden and position of PCNL, prone position was a predictor caused significantly more displacement in all three stages. Among other predictors, only BMI had a significant effect on the amount of the kidney displacement (in stages 2 and 3). Performing PCNL in the complete supine position is safe and effective and leads to less kidney displacement during getting renal access and therefore, it may be considered in most patients requiring PCNL.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Neto EAC, Mitre AI, Gomes CM et al (2007) Percutaneous nephrolithotripsy with the patient in a modified supine position. J Urol 178(1):165–168

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Falahatkar S, AfshariMoghaddam A, Salehi M et al (2008) Complete supine percutaneous nephrolithotripsy comparison with the prone standard technique. J Endourol 22(10):2513–2517

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Karami H, Arab A, Rezaei A et al (2009) Percutaneous nephrolithotomy with ultrasonographyguided renal access in the lateral decubitus flank position. J Endourol 23(1):33–36

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. 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):388–392

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Cormio L, Annese P, Corvasce T et al (2007) Percutaneous nephrostomy in supine position. J Urology 69(2):377–380

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Manohar T, Jain P, Desai M (2007) Supine percutaneous nephrolithotomy: effective approach to high-risk and morbidly obese patients. J Endourol 21(1):44–49

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Valdivia Uria JG, Valle Gerhold J, Lopez JA et al (1998) Technique and complications of percutaneous nephroscopy: experience with 557 patients in the supine position. J Urol 160:1975–1978

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Ng MT, Sun WH, Cheng CW, Chan ES (2004) Supine position is safe and effective for percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Endourol 18:469–474

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. World Health Organization (2000) Obesity: Preventing and managing the global epidemic. Report of a WHO Consultation (WHO Technical Report Series 894). World Health Organization, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  10. 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):581–585

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. El-Assmy AM, Shokeir AA, Mohsen T et al (2007) Renal access by urologist or radiologist for percutaneous nephrolithotomy-is it still an issue? J Urol 178:916–920

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Preminger GM, Assimos DG, Lingeman JE, Nakada SY, Pearle MS, Wolf JS Jr (2005) Chapter 1: AUA guideline on management of staghorn calculi: diagnosis and treatment recommendations. J Urol 173:1991

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Ramakumar S, Segura JW (2000) Renal calculi: percutaneous management. Urol Clin North Am 27:617–622

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. 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 54:196–203

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Gofrit ON, Shapiro A, Donchin Y et al (2002) Lateral decubitus position for percutaneous nephrolithotripsy in the morbidly obese or kyphotic patient. J Endourol 200216(6):383–386

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Basiri A, Ziaee SAM, Nasseh H et al (2008) Totally ultrasonography-guided percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the flank position. J Endourol 22(7):1453–1457

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Falahatkar S, Allahkhah A (2010) Recent developments in percutaneous nephrolithotomy: benefits of the complete supine position. Uro Today Int J 3(2)

  18. Segura JW, Patterson DE, LeRoy AJ et al (1985) Percutaneous removal of kidney stones: review of 1,000 cases. J Urol 134:1077–1081

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Lee WJ, Smith AD, Cubelli V, Badlani GH, Lewin B, Vernace F et al (1987) Complications of percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Am J Roentgenol 148:177–180

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Tefekli A, Karadag MA, Tepeler K et al (2008) Classification of percutaneous nephrolithotomy complications, using the modified clavien grading system: looking for a standard. Eur Urol 53:184–190

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. El-Kenawy MR, El-Kappany HA, El-Diasty TA et al (1992) Percutaneous nephrolithotomy for renal stones in over 1,000 cases. Br J Urol 69:470–475

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Jones DJ, Russel GL, Kellett MJ et al (1990) The changing practice of percutaneous stone surgery: review of 1,000 cases 1981–1988. Br J Urol 66:1–5

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Lingeman JE, Coury TA, Newman DM et al (1987) Comparison of results and morbidity of percutaneous nephrolithotomy and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol 138:485–490

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Patterson DE, Segura JW, LeRoy AJ, Benson RC, May GR (1985) The etiology and treatment of delayed bleeding following percutaneous lithotripsy. J Urol 133:447

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Sharifi AF, Akhavizadegan H, Aryanpoor A, Inanloo H, Karbakhsh M et al (2006) Fever after percutaneous nephrolithotomy: contributing factors. Surg Infect (Larchmt) 7:367–371

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Tuttle DN, Yeh BM, Meng MV et al (2005) Risk of injury to adjacent organs with lower-pole fluoroscopically guided percutaneous nephrostomy: evaluation with prone, supine, and multiplanar reformatted CT. J Vasc Interv Radiol 16:1489–1492

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. LeRoy AJ, Williams HJ Jr, Bender CE et al (1985) Colon perforation following percutaneous nephrostomy and renal calculi removal. Radiology 155:83–85

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Hopper KD, Sherman JL, Luethke JM et al (1987) The retrorenal colon in the supine and prone patient. Radiology 162:443–446

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Sergeyev I, Koi PT, Jacobs SL et al (2007) Outcome of percutaneous surgery stratified according to body mass index and kidney stone size. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 17:179–183

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. El-Assmy AM, Shokeir AA, El-Nahas AR et al (2007) Outcome of percutaneous nephrolithotomy: effect of body mass index. Eur Urol 52:199–205

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. de la Rosette JJMCH, Tsakiris P, Ferrandino MN et al (2008) Beyond prone position in percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a comprehensive review. Eur Urol 54:1262–1269

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Urology Research Center, Razi Hospital, Guilan University of Medical Sciences, Sardar Jangal Street, Rasht, Iran

    Siavash Falahatkar, Seyyed Alaeddin Asgari, Hamidreza Nasseh, Aliakbar Allahkhah, Fatemeh Jafari Farshami, Maryam Shakiba & Samaneh Esmaeili

Authors
  1. Siavash Falahatkar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Seyyed Alaeddin Asgari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hamidreza Nasseh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Aliakbar Allahkhah
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Fatemeh Jafari Farshami
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Maryam Shakiba
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Samaneh Esmaeili
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Siavash Falahatkar.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Falahatkar, S., Asgari, S.A., Nasseh, H. et al. Kidney displacement in complete supine PCNL is lower than prone PCNL. Urol Res 39, 159–164 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-010-0314-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-010-0314-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation