Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy (PCNL) is the standard procedure for large renal stones. This study was conducted to compare the conventional Prone position PCNL with the newer concept of Supine PCNL. A prospective, randomised controlled, double blind study was conducted in 100 patients planned for PCNL. They were randomised into 2 groups with 50 patients each and PCNL was performed either in the prone or supine position. The patient groups were compared for the length of hospital stay, duration of surgery, postoperative and intra operative complications, postoperative stone free status, and requirement of adjunctive procedures. Stone free rates were significantly better for the supine PCNL group. Post operative complications such as fever was more for Prone PCNL group. The other parameters that were not statistically significant were mean operating time which was less for the supine group and duration of hospital stay which was less for the supine group. There was no difference in the other complication rates between the two procedures. The requirement of additional procedures for stone clearance were also same between both the groups. To conclude, Our study demonstrates that supine PCNL is a better technique than prone PCNL in terms of stone free rates, post-operative complications such as fever, lesser number of punctures required for stone clearance and more tubeless procedures.
| Published in | International Journal of Clinical Urology (Volume 5, Issue 1) |
| DOI | 10.11648/j.ijcu.20210501.21 |
| Page(s) | 51-57 |
| Creative Commons |
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited. |
| Copyright |
Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Science Publishing Group |
Supine PCNL, Prone PCNL, Post Operative Complications
| [1] | Turk C, Skolarikos A, Neisius A et al. EAU guidelines on urolithiasis 2019. [Online]; 2019 [cited 2019 April 30. Available from: https://uroweb.org/individual-guidelines/non-oncology-guidelines/urolithiasis. |
| [2] | Assimos D, Krambeck A, Miller NL et al. Surgical Management of Stones: AUA/Endourology Society Guideline (2016). [Online]; 2016 [cited 2019 April 30. Available from: www.auanet.org/guidelines/kidney-stones-surgical-management-guideline. |
| [3] | P, Alken. The Early History of Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy (PNL). In Scoffone CM HACC. Supine Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy and ECIRS: Springer; 2014. p. 5, 6, 7. |
| [4] | Patel RM, Okhunov Z, Clayman RV et al. Prone versus Supine Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy: What is You Position? Current Urology Reports. 2017 April; 18 (4). |
| [5] | Fernstrom I, Johansson B. Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy. A new extraction technique. Scand J Urol Nephrol. 1976; 10 (3). |
| [6] | de la Rosette JJ, Tsakiris P, Ferrandino MN, Elsakka AM, Rioja J, Preminger GM. Beyond prone position in percutaneoous nephrolithotomy: a comprehensive review. Eur Urol. 2008; 54. |
| [7] | Valdivia-Uria JG, Lachares Santamaria E, Villarroya Rodriguez S, et al. Percutaneous nephrolithectomy: simplified technic. Arch Esp Urol. 1987; 40. |
| [8] | Kamphuis GM, Baard J, Westendarp M, de la Rosette JJ. Lessons learned from the CROES percutaneous nephrolithotomy global study. World J Urol. 2015; 33. |
| [9] | Ibarluzea G, Scoffone CM, Cracco CM, Poggio M, Porpiglia F, Terrone C, et al. Supine Valdivia and modified lithotomy position for simultaneous anterograde and retrograde endourological access. BJU Int. 2007; 100. |
| [10] | Liu L, Zheng Shuo, et al. Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy for patients in the supine versus prone position. Journal of Endourol. 2010 December; 24 (12). |
| [11] | Abbas Basiri, Mehrdad Mohammadi Sichani. Supine Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy. Is it really effective? Urol J. 2009; 6 (2). |
| [12] | Falahatkar S, Allahkhah A, Soltanipour S. Supine Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy. Urol J. 2011 May; 8 (4). |
| [13] | Thomas K, Smith NC, Hegarty N, Glass JM. The Guys Stone score - grading the complexity of percutaneous nephrolithotomy procedures. Urology. 2011; 78. |
| [14] | Jones MN, Ranasinghe W, et al. Modified supine versus prone percutaneous nephrolithotomy: Surgical outcomes from a tertiary teaching hospital. Invest Clin Urol. 2016 July; 57 (4). |
| [15] | Sohail N, et al. Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy in complete supine flank-free position in comparison to prone position: A single-centre experience. Arab J Urol. 2017 March; 15 (1). |
| [16] | Yuan D, et al. Supine versus Prone position in percutaneous nephrolithotomy for Kidney Calculi: A Meta-analysis. J Endourol. 2016 July; 30 (7). |
| [17] | Valdivia JG, Scarpa RM, Duvdevani, et al. Supine versus prone position during percutaneous nephrolithootomy: A report from the clinical research office of the endourological society percutaneous nephrolithotomy global study. J Endourol. 2011 October; 25 (10). |
| [18] | Astroza G, Lipkin M, Neisius A, De Sio M, et al. Effect of supine vs prone position on outcomes of percutaneous nephrolithotomy in staghorn calculi: Results from the clinical research office of the endourology society study. Urology. 2013 December; 82 (6). |
| [19] | Wu P, Wang Li, Wang K. Supine versus prone position in percutaneous nephrolithotomy for kidney calculi: a meta-analysis. Int Urol Nephrol. 2011; 43. |
| [20] | Mak DK, Smith Y, et al. What is better in percutaneous nephrolithotomy - Prone or supine? A systematic review. Arab J Urol. 2016 March; 14 (2). |
| [21] | Wang Y, et al. Prone versus modified supine position in percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a prospective randomized study. Int J Med Sci. 2013 September; 10 (11). |
| [22] | Sofer M, Tavdi E, et al. Implementation of supine percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a novel position for an old operation. Cent Europen J Urol. 2017; 70. |
| [23] | Shen P, Liu Y, Wang J. Nephrostomy tube-free versus nephrostomy tube for renal drainage after percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Urol Int. 2012; 88. |
| [24] | Al-Dessoukey AA, Salah Moussa A, Abdelbary A, et al. Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy in the oblique supine lithotomy position and prone position: A comparative study. J Endourol. 2014 September; 28 (9). |
| [25] | Vincenti FC, Perrella R, Souza MG, et al. Impact of patient position on the outcomes of percutaneous nephrolithotomy for complex kidney stones. Int Braz J Urol. 2018 July; 44. |
APA Style
Mohan Keshavamurthy, Niramya Pathak, Karthik Rao, Sreeharsha Harinatha, Shakir Tabrez, et al. (2021). Supine Versus Prone Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy – A Randomised Comparative Study. International Journal of Clinical Urology, 5(1), 51-57. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijcu.20210501.21
ACS Style
Mohan Keshavamurthy; Niramya Pathak; Karthik Rao; Sreeharsha Harinatha; Shakir Tabrez, et al. Supine Versus Prone Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy – A Randomised Comparative Study. Int. J. Clin. Urol. 2021, 5(1), 51-57. doi: 10.11648/j.ijcu.20210501.21
AMA Style
Mohan Keshavamurthy, Niramya Pathak, Karthik Rao, Sreeharsha Harinatha, Shakir Tabrez, et al. Supine Versus Prone Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy – A Randomised Comparative Study. Int J Clin Urol. 2021;5(1):51-57. doi: 10.11648/j.ijcu.20210501.21
Share This Article
Twitter
Linked In
Facebook
Copy
Download@article{10.11648/j.ijcu.20210501.21,
author = {Mohan Keshavamurthy and Niramya Pathak and Karthik Rao and Sreeharsha Harinatha and Shakir Tabrez and Premakumar Krishnappa and Basavaraja Neelagar and Santosh Kumar Subudhi},
title = {Supine Versus Prone Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy – A Randomised Comparative Study},
journal = {International Journal of Clinical Urology},
volume = {5},
number = {1},
pages = {51-57},
doi = {10.11648/j.ijcu.20210501.21},
url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijcu.20210501.21},
eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ijcu.20210501.21},
abstract = {Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy (PCNL) is the standard procedure for large renal stones. This study was conducted to compare the conventional Prone position PCNL with the newer concept of Supine PCNL. A prospective, randomised controlled, double blind study was conducted in 100 patients planned for PCNL. They were randomised into 2 groups with 50 patients each and PCNL was performed either in the prone or supine position. The patient groups were compared for the length of hospital stay, duration of surgery, postoperative and intra operative complications, postoperative stone free status, and requirement of adjunctive procedures. Stone free rates were significantly better for the supine PCNL group. Post operative complications such as fever was more for Prone PCNL group. The other parameters that were not statistically significant were mean operating time which was less for the supine group and duration of hospital stay which was less for the supine group. There was no difference in the other complication rates between the two procedures. The requirement of additional procedures for stone clearance were also same between both the groups. To conclude, Our study demonstrates that supine PCNL is a better technique than prone PCNL in terms of stone free rates, post-operative complications such as fever, lesser number of punctures required for stone clearance and more tubeless procedures.},
year = {2021}
}
TY - JOUR T1 - Supine Versus Prone Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy – A Randomised Comparative Study AU - Mohan Keshavamurthy AU - Niramya Pathak AU - Karthik Rao AU - Sreeharsha Harinatha AU - Shakir Tabrez AU - Premakumar Krishnappa AU - Basavaraja Neelagar AU - Santosh Kumar Subudhi Y1 - 2021/06/09 PY - 2021 N1 - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijcu.20210501.21 DO - 10.11648/j.ijcu.20210501.21 T2 - International Journal of Clinical Urology JF - International Journal of Clinical Urology JO - International Journal of Clinical Urology SP - 51 EP - 57 PB - Science Publishing Group SN - 2640-1355 UR - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijcu.20210501.21 AB - Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy (PCNL) is the standard procedure for large renal stones. This study was conducted to compare the conventional Prone position PCNL with the newer concept of Supine PCNL. A prospective, randomised controlled, double blind study was conducted in 100 patients planned for PCNL. They were randomised into 2 groups with 50 patients each and PCNL was performed either in the prone or supine position. The patient groups were compared for the length of hospital stay, duration of surgery, postoperative and intra operative complications, postoperative stone free status, and requirement of adjunctive procedures. Stone free rates were significantly better for the supine PCNL group. Post operative complications such as fever was more for Prone PCNL group. The other parameters that were not statistically significant were mean operating time which was less for the supine group and duration of hospital stay which was less for the supine group. There was no difference in the other complication rates between the two procedures. The requirement of additional procedures for stone clearance were also same between both the groups. To conclude, Our study demonstrates that supine PCNL is a better technique than prone PCNL in terms of stone free rates, post-operative complications such as fever, lesser number of punctures required for stone clearance and more tubeless procedures. VL - 5 IS - 1 ER -
Email: