Skip to main content
Log in

Supracostal access for percutaneous nephrolithotomy: less morbid, more effective

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Urology and Nephrology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

The aim of this research was to study the success and morbidity of supracostal access for percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL), as it is often avoided for fear of complications.

Materials and methods

Between July 2000 and May 2007, 565 patients underwent PCNL, of whom 110 had a supracostal access. All procedures were performed in a single sitting under general anesthesia. Data were analyzed prospectively for indications, stone clearance rates, and preoperative and postoperative complications.

Results

Indications for supracostal access included large pelvic stones in 39 patients, partial or complete staghorn stones in 32, calyceal stones with major stone bulk above the level of 12th rib in 35, and upper ureteric stones in four. Patients’ ages ranged between 13 and 71 years (mean 44.2 years). Fifty-six cases were left sided and 54 right sided, whereas 103 (93.6%) were radiopaque stones. All tracts were in the 11th intercostal space, though one had an additional tract in the tenth space. Single-tract access was used in 101 cases (91.8%), but nine (8.2%) required a second tract. Overall stone clearance rate with PCNL monotherapy was 86.4%, and this increased to 97.3% with secondary procedures. Overall complication rate was 11.8% and included hydrothorax/hemothorax in ten, perinephric collection in one, infection/sepsis in two, and excessive bleeding in two. Postoperative hospital stay ranged from 2 to 15 days.

Conclusions

The supracostal approach gives high stone clearance rates with acceptable morbidity rates and should be attempted in selected cases. Complications when present may be managed easily with conservative measures.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Galvin DJ, Pearle MS (2006) The contemporary management of renal and ureteric calculi. BJU Int 98:1283–1288

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Lam HS, Lingeman JE, Mosbaugh PG et al (1992) Evolution of the technique of combination therapy for staghorn calculi: a decreasing role for extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol 148:1058–1062

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Delvecchio FC, Preminger GM (2000) Management of residual stones. Urol Clin North Am 27:347–354

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Gupta R, Kumar A, Kapoor R et al (2002) Prospective evaluation of safety and efficacy of the supracostal approach for percutaneous nephrolithotomy. BJU Int 90:809–813

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Munver R, Delvecchio FC, Newman GE et al (2001) Critical analysis of supracostal access for percutaneous renal surgery. J Urol 166:1242–1246

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Kekre NS, Gopalakrishnan GG, Gupta GG et al (2001) Supracostal approach in percutaneous nephrolithotomy: experience with 102 cases. J Endourol 15:789–791

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Golijanin D, Katz R, Verstanding A et al (1998) The supracostal percutaneous nephrostomy for treatment of staghorn and complex kidney stones. J Endourol 12:403–405

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Martin X, Tajra LC, Gelet A et al (1999) Complete staghorn stones: percutaneous approach using one or multiple percutaneous accesses. J Endourol 13:367–368

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. 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 77:340–346

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Aron M, Yadav R, Goel R et al (2005) Multi-tract percutaneous nephrolithotomy for large complete staghorn calculi. Urol Int 75:327–332

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Lojanapiwat B, Prasopsuk S (2006) Upper-pole access for percutaneous nephrolithotomy: comparison of supracostal and infracostal approaches. J Endourol 20:491–494

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Narasimham DL, Jacobbson B, Vijayan P et al (1991) Percutaneous nephrolithotomy through an intercostal approach. Acta Radiol 32:162–165

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Fuchs EF, Forsyth MJ (1990) Supracostal approach for percutaneous ultrasonic lithotripsy. Urol Clin North Am 17:99–102

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Lallas CD, Delvecchio FC, Evans BR et al (2004) Management of nephropleural fistula after supracostal percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Urology 64:241–245

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Radecka E, Brehmer M, Holmgren K et al (2003) Complications associated with percutaneous nephrolithotomy: supra versus subcostal access—a retrospective study. Acta Radiol 44: 447–451

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Shah HN, Hegde SS, Shah JN et al (2006) Safety and efficacy of supracostal access in tubeless percutaneous Nephrolithotomy. J Endourol 20:1016–1021

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Hopper KD, Yakes WE (1990) The posterior intercostal approach for percutaneous renal procedures: risk of puncturing the lung, spleen and liver as determined by CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 154:115–117

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

No financial grants or affiliations.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sudhir Sukumar.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sukumar, S., Nair, B., Kumar, P.G. et al. Supracostal access for percutaneous nephrolithotomy: less morbid, more effective. Int Urol Nephrol 40, 263–267 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-007-9270-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-007-9270-2

Keywords

Navigation