4.6 Article

Modified supine versus prone position in percutaneous nephrolithotomy for renal stones treatable with a single percutaneous access:: A prospective randomized trial

Journal

EUROPEAN UROLOGY
Volume 54, Issue 1, Pages 196-203

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2008.01.067

Keywords

percutaneous nephrolithotomy; renal stones; supine position

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: To compare operative time, safety, and effectiveness of percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the supine versus prone position in a prospective randomized trial. Material and methods: From October 2005 to June 2007, 75 patients (33 men, 42 women; mean age, 39.3 yr) were prospectively enrolled and randomly divided into group A (39 patients, supine position) and group B (36 patients, prone position). Inclusion criteria were diagnosis of single or multiple renal stones (pelvic-caliceal) treatable with a single percutaneous access, stone diameter >2.5 cm, body mass index (BMI) <30 kg/m(2), and no contraindications to perform the operation in the prone position. Exclusion criteria were stones in more than one calyx, complete stag-horn stones, and coexisting renal anomalies. Results: The two groups were comparable in age, BMI, male-to-female ratio, and stone size. No significant difference was ascertained between the two groups in terms of stone-free rate (group A, 88.7% vs. group B, 91.6%, p = 0.12), mean blood loss (group A, A hemoglobin -2.3 g/dl vs. group B, -2.2 g/dl, p = 0.23), and mean hospital stay (group A, 4.3 d vs. group B, 4.1 d, p = 0.18). The only significant difference reported was mean operative time (group A, 43 min vs. group B, 68 min, p < 0.001). No blood transfusions were needed and no organ injuries were reported. Conclusions: In this carefully selected patient population with uncomplicated renal stones, the supine position was similar to the prone position for percutaneous stone removal. (C) 2008 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available