Abstract
In this study it is aimed to compare the success and complication rates of mini-PNL procedure in supine and prone positions. In this retrospective study data of 180 patients treated with MPNL either in supine (n = 54) or prone (n = 126) positions between May 2009 and August 2014 was investigated. Success was defined as no visible stones >2 mm. Perioperative complications were classified using the modified Clavien system. Groups were compared with Chi square test or Student t test and for statistical significance p value of 0.05 was accepted. Mean age of the population was 42.5 ± 8.2 years and mean stone size was 23.9 ± 4.1 mm. The two groups were similar with regard to demographic characteristics and stone related characteristics except the ASA status. Success rates of the supine and prone groups were 85.1 and 87.3 %, respectively (p = 0.701). No statistically significant differences in terms of complications were observed. Mean operative time was the only parameter different between the two groups (55 vs 82 min, p = 0.001). Supine position for PNL seems to be promising and the complication and success rates are shown to be similar to the prone position with MPNL technique. The only significant benefit of this technique is shorter operative time.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Fernstrom I, Johansson B (1976) Percutaneous pyelolithotomy: a new extraction technique. Scand J Urol Nephrol 10:257–259
Ritter M, Krombach P, Michel MS (2011) Percutaneous stone removal. Eur Urol Suppl 2011(110):433–439
Helal M, Black T, Lockhart J, Figueroa TE (1997) The Hickman peel-away sheath: alternative for pediatric percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Endourol 11:171–172
Lahme S, Bichler KH, Strohmaier WL, Götz T (2001) Minimally invasive PCNL in patients with renal pelvic and calyceal stones. Eur Urol 40:619–624
Zeng G, Zhao Z, Wan S, Mai Z, Wu W, Zhong W, Yuan J (2013) Minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy for simple and complex renal caliceal stones: a comparative analysis of more than 10,000 cases. J Endourol 27:1203–1208
Valdivia Uria JG, Valle Gerhold J, Lopez Lopez JA et al (1998) Technique and complications of percutaneous nephroscopy:experience with 557 patients in the supine position. J Urol 160:1975–1978
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 29:821–827
Ibarluzea G, Scoffone CM, Cracco CM, Poggio M, Porpiglia F, Terrone C, Astobieta A, Camargo I, Gamarra M, Tempia A, Valdivia Uria JG, Scarpa RM (2007) Supine Valdivia and modified lithotomy position for simultaneous anterograde and retrograde endourological access. BJU Int 100:233–236
EAU Guidelines, Edition presented at the 25th EAU Annual Congress, Barcelona 2010. ISBN 978-90-79754-70-0
De Sio M, Autorino R, Quarto G et al (2008) Modifiedsupine versus prone position in percutaneous nephrolithotomy for renal stones treatable with a single percutaneous access: a prospective randomized trial. Eur Urol 54:196–203
Manohar T, Jain P, Desai M (2007) Supine percutaneous nephrolithotomy: effective approach to high-risk and morbidly obese patients. J Endourol 21:44–49
Shoma AM, Eraky I, El-Kenawy MR, El-Kappany HA (2002) Percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the supine position: technical aspects and functional outcome compared with the prone technique. Urology 60:388–392
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Tokatlı, Z., Gokce, M.I., Süer, E. et al. Supine or prone position for mini-PNL procedure: does it matter. Urolithiasis 43, 261–264 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-015-0758-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-015-0758-4