Supine PCNL is the Way Forward, with Reduced Anesthesia and Operative Times As Compared to Prone PCNL, Along with Comparable Blood Loss and Stone Free Rates

Abstract

Objective:The aim of this study is to compare safety and efficacy of supine versus prone percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) in terms of stonefree rate, operative time, anesthesia time and blood loss in a retrospective case-control trial.Materials and Methods:Fifty patients underwent supine PCNL during the study period (group A). Equal number of patients, who underwent prone PCNL during same period with similar demographic and clinical attributes, were taken as controls (group B). Demographic details, such as gender and age, and body mass index, stone size, stone location and stone laterality were comparable between the two groups. Pre- and post-operative hemoglobin (Hb) levels in patients in both groups were tabulated. Variables analyzed to compare the groups included operative time, anesthesia time, fall in Hb, blood transfusion, stone clearance and need for auxiliary procedure.Results:The median operative time (minutes) in patients of group A [35; interquartile ratio (IQR): 25], was significantly different from group B (70; IQR: 40) (p=0.000). The median anesthesia time (minutes) in patients in group A (50; IQR: 25) was significantly different from group B (85; 45) (p=0.000). The median fall in Hb (g/dL) in patients in group A (1.700; IQR: 1.2) was significantly different from group B (1.200; IQR: 2.4) (p=0.967). Two patients in group A and 7 in group B needed blood transfusion (p=0.080). Thirty two patient in group A and 34 in group B achieved stonefree status (p=0.833). Eleven patients in group A and 6 in group B needed auxiliary procedure in the form of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (p=0.287).Conclusion:Supine PCNL is as safe and effective as conventionally performed prone PCNL, with an added benefit of decreased operative and anesthesia time.

Keywords

• PCNL
• Supine
• Prone
• Valdivia