Percutaneous nephrolithotomy: Does position matter? - Prone, supine and variations

Current Opinion in Urology

Volumn 23, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 164-168

  Dasgupta, Ranan ^a   Patel, Anup ^b  

^a IMPERIAL COLLEGE HEALTHCARE NHS TRUST   (United Kingdom)

^b WHIPPS CROSS UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

percutaneous nephrolithotomy; prone; renal stones; supine

Indexed keywords

BODY POSITION; BODY POSTURE; HEALTH CARE COST; HIGH RISK POPULATION; HUMAN; KIDNEY PAPILLA; NEPHROLITHIASIS; OPERATION DURATION; PATIENT POSITIONING; PERCUTANEOUS NEPHROLITHOTOMY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); REVIEW; SAFETY; SUPINE POSITION; SURGEON; URETER CATHETERIZATION;

HUMANS; KIDNEY CALCULI; NEPHROSTOMY, PERCUTANEOUS; PATIENT POSITIONING; PRONE POSITION; SUPINE POSITION;

EID: 84873433766     PISSN: 09630643     EISSN: 14736586     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/MOU.0b013e32835d3067     Document Type: Review

References (25)

1. Fernstrom I, Johansson B. Percutaneous pyelolithotomy. A new extraction technique. Scand J Urol Nephrol 1976; 10:257.
2. Valdivia Uria JG, Lachares Santamaria E, Villarroya Rodriguez S, et al. Percutaneous nephrolithectomy: Simplified technique (preliminary report). Arch Esp Urol 1987; 40:177. The original description of the 'Valdivia' technique, which has been adopted and modified by others over the past 25 years.
3. Ibarluzea G, Scoffone CM, Cracco CM, et al. Supine Valdivia and modified lithotomy position for simultaneous anterograde and retrograde endourological access. BJU Int 2007; 100:233. Modification of the original supine description showing the feasibility of a dualsurgeon approach, combining the percutaneous and ureterorenoscopic techniques.
4. Kerbl K, Clayman RV, Chandhoke PS, et al. Percutaneous stone removal with the patient in a flank position. J Urol 1994; 151:686.
5. Karami H, Mohammadi R, Lotfi B. A study on comparative outcomes of percutaneous nephrolithotomy in prone, supine, and flank positions. World J Urol 2012 [Epub ahead of print].
6. Lehman T, Bagley DH. Reverse lithotomy: modified prone position for simultaneous nephroscopic and ureteroscopic procedures in women. Urology 1988; 32:529.
7. Papatsoris AG, Zaman F, Panah A, et al. Simultaneous anterograde and retrograde endourologic access: 'the Barts technique'. J Endourol 2008; 22:2665.
8. Ray AA, Chung DG, Honey RJ. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the prone and prone-flexed positions: Anatomic considerations. J Endourol 2009; 23:1607.
9. .Duty B, Okhunov Z, Smith A, et al. The debate over percutaneous nephrolithotomy positioning: A comprehensive review. J Urol 2011; 186:20. A comprehensive recent review assessing the different aspects of PCNL positioning.
10. Miano R, Scoffone C, De Nunzio C, et al. Position: Prone or supine is the issue of percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Endourol 2010; 24:931.
11. Kumar P, Bach C, Kachrillas S, et al. Supine percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL): 'in vogue' but in which position? BJU Int 2012 [Epub ahead of print]
12. Honey RJ, Wiesenthal JD, Ghiculete D, et al. Comparison of supracostal versus infracostal percutaneous nephrolithotomy using the novel prone-flexed patient position. J Endourol 2011; 25:947.
13. .Valdivia JG, Scarpa RM, Duvdevani M, et al. Supine versus prone position during percutaneous nephrolithotomy: A report from the Clinical Research Office of the Endourological Society Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy Global Study. J Endourol 2011; 25:1619.
14. A large database (over 5000 patients) that gives a global perspective of PCNL practice; the CROES group has published other relevant papers in this series, with representation from several key proponents of percutaneous surgery.
15. Armitage JN, Irving SO, Burgess NA. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the United Kingdom: Results of a prospective data registry. Eur Urol 2012; 61:1188.
16. .Falahatkar S, Moghaddam AA, Salehi M, et al. Complete supine percutaneous nephrolithotripsy comparison with the prone standard technique. J Endourol 2008; 22:2513. A randomized study comparing techniques, one of the several studies by senior author describing their centre's experience.
17. .De Sio M, Autorino R, Quarto G, et al. Modified supine versus prone position in percutaneous nephrolithotomy for renal stones treatable with a single percutaneous access: A prospective randomized trial. Eur Urol 2008; 54:196. A randomized study, with this group describing their experience in the development of the prone approach in their centre.
18. De la Rosette JJ, Zuazu JR, Tsakiris P, et al. Prognostic factors and percutaneous nephrolithotomy morbidity: A multivariate analysis of a contemporary series using the Clavien classification. J Urol 2008; 180:2489.
19. Ozden E, Mercimek MN, Yakupoglu YK, et al. Modified Clavien classification in percutaneous nephrolithotomy: Assessment of complications in children. J Urol 2011; 185:264.
20. Fuller A, Razvi H, Denstedt JD, et al. The CROES percutaneous nephrolithotomy global study: The influence of body mass index on outcome. J Urol 2012; 188:138.
21. Manohar T, Jain P, Desai M. Supine percutaneous nephrolithotomy: Effective approach to high-risk and morbidly obese patients. J Endourol 2007; 21:44.
22. Mazzucchi E, Vicentini FC, Marchini GS, et al. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy in obese patients: Comparison between the prone and total supine position. J Endourol 2012 [Epub ahead of print].
23. Patel SR, Haleblian GE, Pareek G. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy can be safely performed in the high-risk patient. Urology 2010; 75:51.
24. Atkinson CJ, Turney BW, Noble JG, et al. Supine vs prone percutaneous nephrolithotomy: An anaesthetist's view. BJU Int 2011; 108:306.
25. Friedlander JI, Duty BD, Smith AD, et al. Percutaneous nephrostolithotomy: An assessment of costs for prone and Galdakao-modified supine Valdivia positioning. Urology 2012; 80:771-775.