Comparison of supine and prone miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the treatment of lower pole, middle pole and renal pelvic stones: A matched pair analysis

Abstract

ABSTRACT Purpose We aimed to compare the outcomes of supine and prone miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy (m-PNL) in the treatment of lower pole, middle pole and renal pelvic stones. Materials and Methods 54 patients who performed supine m-PNL between January 2017 and March 2018 and 498 patients who performed prone m-PNL between April 2015 and January 2018 were included in the study. Of the 498 patients, 108 matching 1: 2 in terms of age, gender, body mass index, American Association of Anesthesiology score, stone size, stone localization and hydronephrosis according to the supine m-PNL group were selected as prone m-PNL group. The patients with solitary kidney, upper pole stone, urinary system anomaly or skeletal malformation and pediatric patients (<18 years old) were excluded from the study. The success was defined as ‘complete stone clearance’ and was determined according to the 1st month computed tomography. Results The operation time and fluoroscopy time in supine m-PNL was significantly shorter than prone m-PNL group (58.1±45.9 vs. 80.1±40.0 min and 3.0±1.7 min vs. 4.9±4.5 min, p=0.025 and p=0.01, respectively). When post-operative complications were compared according to the modified Clavien-Dindo classification, overall and subgroup complication rates were comparable between groups. There was no significant difference between the groups in terms of the success rates (supine m-PNL; 72.2%, prone m-PNL; 71.3%, p=0.902). Conclusions Supine m-PNL procedure is more advantageous in terms of operation time and fluoroscopy time in the treatment of lower pole, middle pole and renal pelvic stones.

Keywords

• Supine Position
• Nephrolithotomy, Percutaneous
• Pelvis