Goal: We aimed to compare the outcome of Mini Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (M-PCNL) performed using our modified supine position with standard prone M-PCNL for renal and proximal ureteric calculi. Materials and Methods: A prospective study between March 2020 to June 2022, including 202 patients undergoing Mini-PCNL was included in this study: 136 patients (160 renal units) underwent in M-PCNL in the modified supine position (Iyyan’s position) and were compared to 66 patients undergoing Mini-PCNL in the prone position. The stone size was assessed by Non Contrast computed tomography scan (NCCT) of kidney, ureter, and bladder (KUB). The surgical outcomes of anesthesia time, surgical time, radiation dose, radiation time, stone free rate, length of stay in hospital and post-operative complications were compared. Chi-square and t-tests were used. Results: Total of 202 patients were registered, 136 patients of supine miniperc PCNL and 66 patients of prone miniperc PCNL. Out of 202 patients 130 patients were male and 72 were female. The mean age (in years) in Supine M-PCNL was 40.62 ± 1.60 while in prone M-PCNL it was 38.61 ± 71. The mean operative time (minutes) was 45.31 ± 72 in Supine M-PCNL and 72.22 ± 16 in Prone M-PCNL. Complete stone clearance was seen in 133 patients in supine M-PCNL versus 60 patients in prone M-PCNL. There were no major complications in both the groups. The mean post-operative hospital stay (days) was 2.6 in supine M-PCNL versus 4.1 in prone PCNL. Stone clearance rate were higher in Supine M-PCNL. Conclusions: Modified supine M-PCNL has significantly less anesthesia time, less surgical time, less radiation time and dose, less hospital stay and higher stone-free rate compared with prone M-PCNL in our series.
| Published in | International Journal of Clinical Urology (Volume 7, Issue 2) |
| DOI | 10.11648/j.ijcu.20230702.12 |
| Page(s) | 34-39 |
| 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), 2023. Published by Science Publishing Group |
Renal Calculi, Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy, Prone Position, Modified Supine Position (Iyyan’s Position) Stone Free Rate
| [1] | Türk C, Knoll T, Petrik A, Sarica K, Skolarikos A, Straub M, et al. Guidelines on Urolithiasis. Arnhem (The Netherlands): European Association of Urology (EAU) 2013 [Google Scholar]. |
| [2] | José G Valdivia, Roberto M Scarpa, Mordechai Duvdevani, Andreas J Gross, Robert B Nadler, Kikuo Nutahara, Jean J M C H de la Rosette, Croes PCNL Study Group. J Endourol. 2011 Oct 25 (10). |
| [3] | Miano R, Scoffone C, De Nunzio C, Germani S, Cracco C, Usai P, et al. Position: prone or supine is the issue of percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Endourol 2010; 24: 931-8. |
| [4] | Anna wright, Nick rukin, and Bhaskar k. Somnani, et al Mini, ultra, micro' - nomenclature and cost of these new minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) techniques. Therapeutic advances in urology. April 2016; 8 (2). Pub med. |
| [5] | Valdivia-Urìa JG, Lachares Santamaría E, Villarroya Rodríguez S, et al. Percutaneous nephrolithectomy: simplified technic (preliminary report) Arch Esp Urol. 1987; 40: 177–180. |
| [6] | Bach C, Goyal A, Kumar P, et al. The Barts 'flank-free' modified supine position for percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Urol Int 2012; 89: 365-8. |
| [7] | Hopper KD, Sherman JL, Luethke JM, et al. The retro renal colon in the supine and prone patient. Radiology 1987; 162: 443-6. |
| [8] | McCahy P, Rzetelski-West K, Gleeson J. Complete stone clearance using a modified supine position: initial experience and comparison with prone percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Endourol. 2013; 27: 705–709. |
| [9] | 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. |
| [10] | Atkinson CJ, Turney BW, Noble JG, Reynard JM, Stoneham MD. Supine vs. prone percutaneous nephrolithotomy: an anesthetist’s view. BJU Int. 2011; 108: 306–308. |
| [11] | Fuller A, Razvi H, Denstedt JD, Nott L, Pearle M, Cauda F, et al. The CROES percutaneous nephrolithotomy global study: the influence of body mass index on outcome. J Urol. 2012; 188: 138–144. |
| [12] | Wang Y, Hou Y, Jiang F, Wang Y, Wang C. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy for staghorn stones in patients with solitary kidney in prone position or in completely supine position: a single-center experience. Int Braz J Urol. 2012; 38: 788–794. |
| [13] | Goumas-Kartalas I, Montanari E. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy in patients with spinal deformities. J Endourol. 2010; 24: 1081–1089. |
| [14] | Seitz C, Desai M, Häcker A, Hakenberg OW, Liatsikos E, Nagele U, et al. Incidence, prevention, and management of complications following percutaneous nephrolitholapaxy. Eur Urol. 2012; 61: 146–58. |
| [15] | Sofer M, Beri A, Friedman A, et al. extending the application of tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Urology. 2007; 70: 412–416. |
| [16] | Desai J, Solanki R. Ultra-mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy (UMP): one more armamentarium. BJU Int. 2013; 112: 1046–9. |
| [17] | Retrograde ureteroscopic intrarenal surgery for large upper ureteric and renal calculus. Indian J Urol. 2010 Jan-Mar; 26 (1): 46–49. M. Prabakaran. |
| [18] | Giusti G, Proietti S, Rodríguez-Socarrás ME, et al. Simultaneous Bilateral Endoscopic Surgery (SBES) for Patients with Bilateral Upper Tract Urolithiasis: Technique and Outcomes. Eur Urol 2018; 74: 810-5. |
| [19] | Nikolaos Ferakis and Marios Stavropoulos. Mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the treatment of renal and upper ureteral stones: Lessons learned from a review of the literature. Urol Ann. 2015 Apr-Jun; 7 (2): 141–148. |
| [20] | Chandra Mohan Vaddi, Paidakula Ramakrishna, Siddaliga Swamy, et al. Supine percutaneous nephrolithotomy in a 9-month infant: Urology Case Reports, 2021-01-01, Volume 34, Article 101424,. |
| [21] | W Gamal, E Moursy, M Hussein, A Mmdouh, A Hammady, M Aldahshoury, Supine pediatric percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Pediatric Urol. 2015 Apr; 11 (2): 78. doi: 10.1016/j.jpurol.2014.10.012. Epub 2015 Mar 4. |
APA Style
Bhalaguru Iyyan, Puvai Murugan, Shree Vishnu Siddarth, Krishna Mohan Boopathy Vijayaraghavan. (2023). Supine Mini Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy a Substitute to Prone Mini Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy for the Management of Renal and Proximal Ureteric Calculi. International Journal of Clinical Urology, 7(2), 34-39. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijcu.20230702.12
ACS Style
Bhalaguru Iyyan; Puvai Murugan; Shree Vishnu Siddarth; Krishna Mohan Boopathy Vijayaraghavan. Supine Mini Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy a Substitute to Prone Mini Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy for the Management of Renal and Proximal Ureteric Calculi. Int. J. Clin. Urol. 2023, 7(2), 34-39. doi: 10.11648/j.ijcu.20230702.12
AMA Style
Bhalaguru Iyyan, Puvai Murugan, Shree Vishnu Siddarth, Krishna Mohan Boopathy Vijayaraghavan. Supine Mini Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy a Substitute to Prone Mini Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy for the Management of Renal and Proximal Ureteric Calculi. Int J Clin Urol. 2023;7(2):34-39. doi: 10.11648/j.ijcu.20230702.12
Share This Article
Twitter
Linked In
Facebook
Copy
Download@article{10.11648/j.ijcu.20230702.12,
author = {Bhalaguru Iyyan and Puvai Murugan and Shree Vishnu Siddarth and Krishna Mohan Boopathy Vijayaraghavan},
title = {Supine Mini Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy a Substitute to Prone Mini Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy for the Management of Renal and Proximal Ureteric Calculi},
journal = {International Journal of Clinical Urology},
volume = {7},
number = {2},
pages = {34-39},
doi = {10.11648/j.ijcu.20230702.12},
url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijcu.20230702.12},
eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ijcu.20230702.12},
abstract = {Goal: We aimed to compare the outcome of Mini Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (M-PCNL) performed using our modified supine position with standard prone M-PCNL for renal and proximal ureteric calculi. Materials and Methods: A prospective study between March 2020 to June 2022, including 202 patients undergoing Mini-PCNL was included in this study: 136 patients (160 renal units) underwent in M-PCNL in the modified supine position (Iyyan’s position) and were compared to 66 patients undergoing Mini-PCNL in the prone position. The stone size was assessed by Non Contrast computed tomography scan (NCCT) of kidney, ureter, and bladder (KUB). The surgical outcomes of anesthesia time, surgical time, radiation dose, radiation time, stone free rate, length of stay in hospital and post-operative complications were compared. Chi-square and t-tests were used. Results: Total of 202 patients were registered, 136 patients of supine miniperc PCNL and 66 patients of prone miniperc PCNL. Out of 202 patients 130 patients were male and 72 were female. The mean age (in years) in Supine M-PCNL was 40.62 ± 1.60 while in prone M-PCNL it was 38.61 ± 71. The mean operative time (minutes) was 45.31 ± 72 in Supine M-PCNL and 72.22 ± 16 in Prone M-PCNL. Complete stone clearance was seen in 133 patients in supine M-PCNL versus 60 patients in prone M-PCNL. There were no major complications in both the groups. The mean post-operative hospital stay (days) was 2.6 in supine M-PCNL versus 4.1 in prone PCNL. Stone clearance rate were higher in Supine M-PCNL. Conclusions: Modified supine M-PCNL has significantly less anesthesia time, less surgical time, less radiation time and dose, less hospital stay and higher stone-free rate compared with prone M-PCNL in our series.},
year = {2023}
}
TY - JOUR T1 - Supine Mini Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy a Substitute to Prone Mini Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy for the Management of Renal and Proximal Ureteric Calculi AU - Bhalaguru Iyyan AU - Puvai Murugan AU - Shree Vishnu Siddarth AU - Krishna Mohan Boopathy Vijayaraghavan Y1 - 2023/07/27 PY - 2023 N1 - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijcu.20230702.12 DO - 10.11648/j.ijcu.20230702.12 T2 - International Journal of Clinical Urology JF - International Journal of Clinical Urology JO - International Journal of Clinical Urology SP - 34 EP - 39 PB - Science Publishing Group SN - 2640-1355 UR - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijcu.20230702.12 AB - Goal: We aimed to compare the outcome of Mini Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (M-PCNL) performed using our modified supine position with standard prone M-PCNL for renal and proximal ureteric calculi. Materials and Methods: A prospective study between March 2020 to June 2022, including 202 patients undergoing Mini-PCNL was included in this study: 136 patients (160 renal units) underwent in M-PCNL in the modified supine position (Iyyan’s position) and were compared to 66 patients undergoing Mini-PCNL in the prone position. The stone size was assessed by Non Contrast computed tomography scan (NCCT) of kidney, ureter, and bladder (KUB). The surgical outcomes of anesthesia time, surgical time, radiation dose, radiation time, stone free rate, length of stay in hospital and post-operative complications were compared. Chi-square and t-tests were used. Results: Total of 202 patients were registered, 136 patients of supine miniperc PCNL and 66 patients of prone miniperc PCNL. Out of 202 patients 130 patients were male and 72 were female. The mean age (in years) in Supine M-PCNL was 40.62 ± 1.60 while in prone M-PCNL it was 38.61 ± 71. The mean operative time (minutes) was 45.31 ± 72 in Supine M-PCNL and 72.22 ± 16 in Prone M-PCNL. Complete stone clearance was seen in 133 patients in supine M-PCNL versus 60 patients in prone M-PCNL. There were no major complications in both the groups. The mean post-operative hospital stay (days) was 2.6 in supine M-PCNL versus 4.1 in prone PCNL. Stone clearance rate were higher in Supine M-PCNL. Conclusions: Modified supine M-PCNL has significantly less anesthesia time, less surgical time, less radiation time and dose, less hospital stay and higher stone-free rate compared with prone M-PCNL in our series. VL - 7 IS - 2 ER -
Information
Email: