How well tolerated is supine percutaneous nephrolithotomy?

Current Opinion in Urology

Volumn 24, Issue 2, 2014, Pages 184-188

  Baard, Joyce ^a   Kamphuis, Guido M ^a   Westendarp, Matias ^a   De La Rosette, Jean J M C H ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

percutaneous nephrolithotomy; renal stones, safety; supine

Indexed keywords

HUMANS; KIDNEY CALCULI; NEPHROSTOMY, PERCUTANEOUS; PATIENT POSITIONING; PATIENT SELECTION; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK FACTORS; SUPINE POSITION; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84894094905     PISSN: 09630643     EISSN: 14736586     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/MOU.0000000000000023     Document Type: Review

References (41)

1. Fernström I, Johansson B. Percutaneous pyelolithotomy. A new extraction technique. Scand J Urol Nephrol 1976;10:257-259.
2. Tiselius HG, Ackermann D, Alken P, et al. Guidelines on urolithiasis. Eur Urol 2001;40:362-371.
3. Skolarikos A, Alivizatos G, de la Rosette JJMCH. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy and its legacy. Eur Urol 2005;47:22-28.
4. Atkinson CJ, Turney BW, Noble JG, Reynard JMSM. Supine vs prone percutaneous nephrolithotomy: an anaesthetist's view. BJU Int 2011;108:306-308.
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;31:1225-1230. A randomly assigned study comparing outcome of prone, supine, and flank position PCNL.
6. Falahatkar S, Moghaddam AA, Salehi M, et al. Complete supine percutaneous nephrolithotripsy comparison with the prone standard technique. J Endourol 2008;22:2513-2517.
7. Valdivia Uría JG, Valle Gerhold J, López López JA, et al. Technique and complications of percutaneous nephroscopy: experience with 557 patients in the supine position. J Urol 1998;160(6 Pt 1):1975-1978.
8. Das Gupta R, Patel A. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy: does position matter? Prone, supine and variations. Curr Opinion Urol 2013;23:164-168.
9. Kukreja RA, Desai MR, Lon F, et al. Fluid absorption during percutaneous nephrolithotomy: does it matter? J Endourol 2002;16:221-224.
10. 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;54:196-202.
11. Rosette J, De, Assimos D, Desai M, et al. The Clinical Research Office of the Endourological Society Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy Global Study: indications, complications, and outcomes in 5803 patients. J Endourol 2011;25:11-17.
12. Kumar P, Bach C, Kachrilas S, et al. Supine percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL): 'in vogue' but in which position? BJU Int 2012;110:1018-1021.
13. Vicentini FC, Torricelli F C M, Mazzucchi E, et al. Modified complete supine percutaneous nephrolithotomy: solving some problems. J Endourol 2013;27:845-849.
14. Ng M-T, Sun W-H, Cheng C-W, Chan E-S. Supine position is safe and effective for percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Endurol 2004;18:470-474.
15. Shoma AM, Eraky I, El-Kenawy MR, El-Kappany HA. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the supine position: technical aspects and functional outcome compared with the prone technique. Urology 2002;60:388-392.
16. Scoffone CM, Cracco CM, Cossu M, et al. Endoscopic combined intrarenal surgery in Galdakao-modified supine Valdivia position: a new standard for percutaneous nephrolithotomy? Eur Urol 2008;54:1393-1403.
17. Ibarluzea G, Scoffone CM, Cracco CM, et al. Supine Valdivia and modified lithotomy position for simultaneous anterograde and retrograde endourological access. BJU Int 2007;100:233-236.
18. Papatsoris AG, Zaman F, Panah A, et al. Simultaneous anterograde and retrograde endourologic access: 'the Barts technique'. J Endourol 2008;22:2665-2666.
19. Duty B, Waingankar N, Okhunov Z, et al. Anatomical variation between the prone, supine, and supine oblique positions on computed tomography: implications for percutaneous nephrolithotomy access. Urology 2012;79:67-71. An interesting insight into anatomical variations between the prone, supine, and supine oblique position PCNL.
20. 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;25:1619-1625.
21. Munver R, Delvecchio FC, Newman GE, Preminger GM. Critical analysis of supracostal access for percutaneous renal surgery. J Urol 2001;166:1242-1246.
22. Skolarikos A, de la Rosette J. Prevention and treatment of complications following percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Curr Opin Urol 2008;18:229-234.
23. El-Nahas AR, Shokeir AA, El-Assmy AM, et al. Colonic perforation during percutaneous nephrolithotomy: study of risk factors. Urology 2006;67:937-941.
24. Michel MS, Trojan L, Rassweiler JJ. Complications in percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Eur Urol 2007;51:899-906.
25. Azhar RA, Szymanski KM, Lemercier E, et al. Visceral organ-to- percutaneous tract distance is shorter when patients are placed in the prone position on bolsters compared with the supine position. J Endourol 2011;25:687-690.
26. Falahatkar S, Asgari SA, Nasseh H, et al. Kidney displacement in complete supine PCNL is lower than prone PCNL. Urol Res 2011;39:159-164.
27. Khoshrang H, Falahatkar S, Ilat S, et al. Comparative study of hemodynamics electrolyte and metabolic changes during prone and complete supine percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Nephrourol Mon 2012;4:622-628. A comparative study on the electrolyte and metabolic changes of prone and complete supine PCNL showing no significant differences. Though significant differences were seen in hemodynamics favoring supine PCNL.
28. Kukreja R, Desai M, Patel S, et al. Factors affecting blood loss during percutaneous nephrolithotomy: prospective study. J Endourol 2004;18:715-722.
29. De la Rosette JJMCH, 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;180:2489-2493.
30. Smith A, Averch TD, Shahrour K, et al. A nephrolithometric nomogram to predict treatment success of percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Urol 2013;190:149-156.
31. Mazzucchi E, Vicentini FC, Marchini GS, et al. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy in obese patients: comparison between the prone and total supine position. J Endourol 2012;26:1437-1442.
32. Manohar T, Jain P, Desai M. Supine percutaneous nephrolithotomy: effective approach to high-risk and morbidly obese patients. J Endourol 2007;21:44-49.
33. 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;188:138-144.
34. Falahatkar S, Moghaddam KG, Kazemnezhad E, et al. Factors affecting operative time during percutaneous nephrolithotomy: our experience with the complete supine position. J Endourol 2011;25:1831-1836.
35. Okeke Z, Smith AD, Labate G, et al. Prospective comparison of outcomes of percutaneous nephrolithotomy in elderly patients versus younger patients. J Endourol 2012;26:996-1001.
36. Sanguedolce F, Breda A, Millan F, et al. Lower pole stones: prone PCNL versus supine PCNL in the International Cooperation in Endourology (ICE) group experience. World J Urol 2012;4-9.
37. Wu P, Wang L, Wang K. Supine versus prone position in percutaneous nephrolithotomy for kidney calculi: a meta-analysis. Int Urol Nephrol 2011;43:67-77.
38. Liu L, Zheng S, Xu Y, Wei Q. Systematic review and meta-analysis of percutaneous nephrolithotomy for patients in the supine versus prone position. J Endourol 2010;24:1941-1946.
39. Tuttle DN, Yeh BM, Meng MV, et al. Risk of injury to adjacent organs with lower-pole fluoroscopically guided percutaneous nephrostomy: evaluation with prone, supine, and multiplanar reformatted CT. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2005;16:1489-1492.
40. Chalasani V, Bissoon D, Bhuvanagir AK, et al. Should PCNL patients have a CT in the prone position preoperatively? Can J Urol 2010;17:5082-5086.
41. Boon JM, Shinners B, Meiring JH. Variations of the position of the colon as appliedtopercutaneous nephrostomy. Surg RadiolAnat 2001;23:421-425.