Online citations, reference lists, and bibliographies.

Comparison Of Supine And Prone Miniaturized Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy In The Treatment Of Lower Pole, Middle Pole And Renal Pelvic Stones: A Matched Pair Analysis

Akif Erbin, Harun Ozdemir, Murat Şahan, Metin Savun, Alkan Çubuk, Ozgur Yazici, Mehmet Fatih Akbulut, Omer Sarilar
Published 2019 · Medicine
Cite This
Download PDF
Analyze on Scholarcy
ABSTRACT Purpose We aimed to compare the outcomes of supine and prone miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy (m-PNL) in the treatment of lower pole, middle pole and renal pelvic stones. Materials and Methods 54 patients who performed supine m-PNL between January 2017 and March 2018 and 498 patients who performed prone m-PNL between April 2015 and January 2018 were included in the study. Of the 498 patients, 108 matching 1: 2 in terms of age, gender, body mass index, American Association of Anesthesiology score, stone size, stone localization and hydronephrosis according to the supine m-PNL group were selected as prone m-PNL group. The patients with solitary kidney, upper pole stone, urinary system anomaly or skeletal malformation and pediatric patients (<18 years old) were excluded from the study. The success was defined as ‘complete stone clearance’ and was determined according to the 1st month computed tomography. Results The operation time and fluoroscopy time in supine m-PNL was significantly shorter than prone m-PNL group (58.1±45.9 vs. 80.1±40.0 min and 3.0±1.7 min vs. 4.9±4.5 min, p=0.025 and p=0.01, respectively). When post-operative complications were compared according to the modified Clavien-Dindo classification, overall and subgroup complication rates were comparable between groups. There was no significant difference between the groups in terms of the success rates (supine m-PNL; 72.2%, prone m-PNL; 71.3%, p=0.902). Conclusions Supine m-PNL procedure is more advantageous in terms of operation time and fluoroscopy time in the treatment of lower pole, middle pole and renal pelvic stones.
This paper references
Invited review: the tale of ECIRS (Endoscopic Combined IntraRenal Surgery) in the Galdakaomodified supine
CM Scoffone (2018)
Stephen Jackman (1999)
Systematic review and meta-analysis of percutaneous nephrolithotomy for patients in the supine versus prone position.
Liangren Liu (2010)
Reverse lithotomy: modified prone position for simultaneous nephroscopic and ureteroscopic procedures in women.
Travis Lehman (1988)
Invited review: the tale of ECIRS (Endoscopic Combined IntraRenal Surgery) in the Galdakao-modified supine Valdivia position
Cesare Marco Scoffone (2017)
Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy in the Oblique Supine Lithotomy Position and Prone Position: A Comparative Study
A. Aref (2014)
Anaesthesia in the prone position.
Hilary Edgcombe (2008)
Supine Versus Prone Position in Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy for Kidney Calculi: A Meta-Analysis.
Dongbo Yuan (2016)
The debate over percutaneous nephrolithotomy positioning: a comprehensive review.
Brian D. Duty (2011)
Simultaneous Bilateral Endoscopic Manipulation for Bilateral Renal Stones.
G. Giusti (2016)
ECIRS (Endoscopic Combined IntraRenal Surgery) in the Galdakao-modified supine Valdivia position: a new life for percutaneous surgery?
Cecilia Maria Cracco (2011)
[Percutaneous nephrolithectomy: simplified technic (preliminary report)].
Valdivia Uría Jg (1987)
Tract Sizes in Miniaturized Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy: A Systematic Review from the European Association of Urology Urolithiasis Guidelines Panel.
Yasir Ruhayel (2017)
Classification of Surgical Complications: A New Proposal With Evaluation in a Cohort of 6336 Patients and Results of a Survey
D. Dindo (2004)
Super-mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy (SMP): a new concept in technique and instrumentation.
G. Zeng (2016)
Ultra-mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy (UMP): one more armamentarium.
Janak D. Desai (2013)
Technique and complications of percutaneous nephroscopy: experience with 557 patients in the supine position.
José Gabriel Valdivia Uría (1998)
Identification and reduction of surgical error using simulation
Richard M. Satava (2005)
Supine or prone position for mini-PNL procedure: does it matter
Zafer Tokatlı (2015)
Variations of the position of the colon as applied to percutaneous nephrostomy
Johannes M Boon (2001)
Percutaneous stone removal with the patient in a flank position.
Kurt Kerbl (1994)
Supine versus prone position during percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a report from the clinical research office of the endourological society percutaneous nephrolithotomy global study.
J. G. Valdivia (2011)
Percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the oblique supine lithotomy position and prone position: a comparative study.
Ahmad Aref Al-Dessoukey (2014)
EAU Guidelines on Diagnosis and Conservative Management of Urolithiasis.
Christian Tuerk (2016)
Single-step percutaneous nephrolithotomy (microperc): the initial clinical report.
Mahesh R. Desai (2011)
Modified supine versus prone position in percutaneous nephrolithotomy for renal stones treatable with a single percutaneous access: a prospective randomized trial.
Marco de Sio (2008)
Simultaneous anterograde and retrograde endourologic access: "the Barts technique".
Athanasios G. Papatsoris (2008)
Prone Versus Supine Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy: What Is Your Position?
R. Patel (2017)

This paper is referenced by
Semantic Scholar Logo Some data provided by SemanticScholar