Prone Perkütan Nefrolitotomi

Year 2020, Volume: 12 Issue: 1, 35 - 44, 30.01.2020

Yusuf Özlülerden , Ömer Tuncay

Abstract

Perkütan nefrolitotomi (PNL) 2 cm üzerindeki böbrek taşlarında, çoklu böbrek taşlarında ve staghorn tipi böbrek

taşlarında tercih edilen ilk tedavi yöntemidir. PNL’ de standart hasta pozisyonu prone (yüzükoyun) pozisyondur. Prone

pozisyonu, geniş bir alan sağlayarak hem böbreğe girişte; hem de böbreğe girdikten sonra çalışma sırasında avantaj

sağlamaktadır.

Bu derlemenin amacı güncel literatürler eşliğinde prone PNL’ yi yeniden gözden geçirmektir.

Prone PNL ve supin PNL güncel çalışmalar incelendiğinde benzer taşsızlık oranları, benzer organ yaralanması, idrar

kaçağı ve genel komplikasyon oranları görülmektedir. Prone PNL özellikle obez hastalarda, ağrı palyasyonunun önemli

olduğu spinal anestezi planlanan hastalarda, çoklu giriş gerektiren hastalarda, eş zamanlı bilateral PNL yapılması

planlanan hastalarda güvenliği, etkinliği ve daha düşük komplikasyon oranlarıyla daha ön plana çıkmaktadır.

Her ne kadar supin PNL için literatür sayısında artışla beraber bazı avantajları nedeniyle tercih edilmesi hususunda

desteklenme çabaları günümüzde yoğunlaşsada prone PNL den hala daha güvenli başarılı olduğu kanıtlanamamıştır.

Prone PNL; kolay akses ve dilatasyon sağlaması, daha geniş operatif alana sahip olması, çoklu girişler için daha konforlu

olması, obez hatta morbit obez hastalarda dahi güvenli olması ve akses kolaylığı sağlaması ve atnalı böbrekler gibi

anomalili böbreklerde de daha güvenli olması nedeniyle birçok ürolog tarafınca en çok tercih edilen yöntemdir. Ayrıca

yıllar içinde edinilen tecrübe ve uygulanma oranı ile ön plana çıkmaktadır. Prone PNL de yeni akses kolaylığı sağlayan

tekniklerin tanımlanması ve kombine Retrograd intrarenal cerrahi kullanımının sağlanması yöntemin hala gelişime

açık olduğunu göstermektedir. Bu nedenle prone PNL eski bir yöntem olarak görünmesine rağmen eskimeyen bir

yöntem olduğu akılda tutulmalıdır.

Keywords

perkütan nefrolitotomi, prone, supin, böbrek, taş hastalığı

Prone Percutaneous Nephrolitotomy

Abstract

Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PNL) is the first treatment method of choice for kidney stones over 2 cm, multiple

kidney stones and staghorn type kidney stones. The standard patient position in PNL is prone position. Prone position

provides a wide area both at the entrance to the kidney and it also provides an advantage during the operation after

entering the kidney.

The aim of this review is to evaluate the prone PNL with new literature.

When Prone PNL and supine PNL current studies are examined, both had similar stone-free rates, similar organ

injuries, urine leakage and general complication rates. Prone PNL is more prominent with its safety, efficacy and lower

complication rates, especially in obese patients, patients with spinal anesthesia where pain palliation is important,

patients requiring multiple accesses and patients scheduled for simultaneous bilateral PNL. Although the number

of studies for supine PNL is increasing due to some advantages, it is not proved that safe and more successful than

prone PNL. Prone PNL is the most preferred by many urologists because it provides easy access and dilatation collage,

provides a wider operative area, is more comfortable for multiple entrances, is safe in obese or morbid obese patients,and is easier to access and is safer in anomaly kidneys such as horseshoe kidneys. It also comes to the forefront with the experience and implementation rate gained over the years. In Prone PNL, the identification of techniques that provide new accessories and the use of combined RIRS show that the method is still open to development. Therefore, it should be kept in mind that although prone PNL seems to be an old method, it is an obsolete method.

Keywords

Percutaneous nephrolithotomy, prone, supine, kidney, stone disease

References

• 1. Casey WC, Goodwin WE. Percutaneous antegrade pyelography and hydronephrosis; direct, intrapelvic injection of urographic contrast material to secure a pyeloureterogram after percutaneous needle puncture and aspiration of hydronephrosis. J Urol 1955;74:164-73.
• 2. Fernstrom I, Johansson B. Percutaneous pyelolithotomy. A new extraction technique. Scand J Urol Nephrol 1976;10:257-9.
• 3. Chaussy C, Schmiedt E, Jocham D, Brendel W, Forssmann B, Walther V. First clinical experience with extracorporeally induced destruction of kidney stones by shock waves. J Urol 1982;127:417-20.
• 4. Kanaroglou A, Razvi H. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy under conscious sedation in morbidly obese patients. Can J Urol 2006;13:3153-5.
• 5. Cicek T, Gonulalan U, Dogan R, Kosan M, Istanbulluoglu O, Gonen M, et al. Spinal anesthesia is an efficient and safe anesthetic method for percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Urology 2014;83:50-5.
• 6. Ko R, Soucy F, Denstedt JD, Razvi H. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy made easier: a practical guide, tips and tricks. BJU Int 2008;101:535-9.
• 7. Lojanapiwat B. The ideal puncture approach for PCNL: Fluoroscopy, ultrasound or endoscopy? Indian J Urol 2013;29:208-13.
• 8. Soria F, Delgado MI, Sanchez FM, Allona A, Jimenez Cruz JF, Morell E, et al. Effectiveness of three-dimensional fluoroscopy in percutaneous nephrostomy: an animal model study. Urology 2009;73:649-52; discussion 52-4.
• 9. Tepeler A, Armagan A, Akman T, Polat EC, Ersoz C, Topaktas R, et al. Impact of percutaneous renal access technique on outcomes of percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Endourol 2012;26:828-33.
• 10. Chen ML, Shukla G, Jackman SV, Tsao AK, Smaldone MC, Ost MC, et al. Real-time tomographic reflection in facilitating percutaneous access to the renal collecting system. J Endourol 2011;25:743-5.
• 11. Yan S, Xiang F, Yongsheng S. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy guided solely by ultrasonography: a 5-year study of >700 cases. BJU Int 2013;112:965-71.
• 12. Spirnak JP, Resnick MI. Retrograde percutaneous stone removal using modified Lawson technique. Urology 1987;30:551-3.
• 13. Kawahara T, Ito H, Terao H, Yoshida M, Ogawa T, Uemura H, et al. Ureteroscopy assisted retrograde nephrostomy: a new technique for percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL). BJU Int 2012;110:588-90.
• 14. Safak M, Gogus C, Soygur T. Nephrostomy tract dilation using a balloon dilator in percutaneous renal surgery: experience with 95 cases and comparison with the fascial dilator system. Urol Int 2003;71:382-4.
• 15. Dehong C, Liangren L, Huawei L, Qiang W. A comparison among four tract dilation methods of percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Urolithiasis 2013;41:523-30.
• 16. Li Y, Yang L, Xu P, Shen P, Qian S, Wei W, et al. One-shot versus gradual dilation technique for tract creation in percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Urolithiasis 2013;41:443-8.
• 17. Carrion DM, Cansino JR, Quintana LM, Gomez Rivas J, Mainez Rodriguez JA, Perez-Carral JR, et al. Prone percutaneous nephrolithotomy: its advantages and our technique for puncture. Transl Androl Urol 2018;7:950-59.
• 18. Uribe CA, Osorio H, Benavides J, Martinez CH, Valley ZA, Kaler KS. A New Technique for Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy Using Retrograde Ureteroscopy and Laser Fiber to Achieve Percutaneous Nephrostomy Access: The Initial Case Report. J Endourol Case Rep 2019;5:131-36.
• 19. Kaler KS, Parkhomenko E, Lin CY, Valley ZA, Kim WK, Okhunov Z, et al. A New Twist on an Old Technique: Lawson Retrograde Endoscopic-Guided Nephrostomy Access for Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy in Prone Split-Leg Position. J Endourol Case Rep 2018;4:190-94.
• 20. Marchini GS, Torricelli FC, Mazzucchi E, Srougi M, Monga M. Prone split-leg position to manage encrusted ureteral stents in a single-stage procedure in women: Step-by-step surgical technique. Can Urol Assoc J 2015;9:E494-9.
• 21. Patel RM, Okhunov Z, Clayman RV, Landman J. Prone Versus Supine Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy: What Is Your Position? Curr Urol Rep 2017;18:26.
• 22. Falahatkar S, Mokhtari G, Teimoori M. An Update on Supine Versus Prone Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy: A Meta-analysis. Urol J 2016;13:2814-22.
• 23. Yuan D, Liu Y, Rao H, Cheng T, Sun Z, Wang Y, et al. Supine Versus Prone Position in Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy for Kidney Calculi: A Meta-Analysis. J Endourol 2016;30:754-63.
• 24. Zhang X, Xia L, Xu T, Wang X, Zhong S, Shen Z. Is the supine position superior to the prone position for percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL)? Urolithiasis 2014;42:87-93.
• 25. Astroza G, Lipkin M, Neisius A, Preminger G, De Sio M, Sodha H, et al. Effect of supine vs prone position on outcomes of percutaneous nephrolithotomy in staghorn calculi: results from the Clinical Research Office of the Endourology Society Study. Urology 2013;82:1240-4.
• 26. Al-Dessoukey AA, Moussa AS, Abdelbary AM, Zayed A, Abdallah R, Elderwy AA, et al. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the oblique supine lithotomy position and prone position: a comparative study. J Endourol 2014;28:1058-63.
• 27. Sharma G, Jangid DK, Yadav SS, Mathur R, Tomar V. Retro-renal colon: role in percutaneous access. Urolithiasis 2015;43:171-5.
• 28. Tuttle DN, Yeh BM, Meng MV, Breiman RS, Stoller ML, Coakley FV. 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;16:1489-92.
• 29. Valdivia JG, Scarpa RM, Duvdevani M, Gross AJ, Nadler RB, Nutahara K, 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;25:1619-25.
• 30. 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;24:1941-6.
• 31. Sanguedolce F, Breda A, Millan F, Brehmer M, Knoll T, Liatsikos E, et al. Lower pole stones: prone PCNL versus supine PCNL in the International Cooperation in Endourology (ICE) group experience. World J Urol 2013;31:1575-80.
• 32. Mazzucchi E, Vicentini FC, Marchini GS, Danilovic A, Brito AH, Srougi M. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy in obese patients: comparison between the prone and total supine position. J Endourol 2012;26:1437-42.
• 33. Falahatkar S, Moghaddam AA, Salehi M, Nikpour S, Esmaili F, Khaki N. Complete supine percutaneous nephrolithotripsy comparison with the prone standard technique. J Endourol 2008;22:2513-7.
• 34. De Sio M, Autorino R, Quarto G, Calabro F, Damiano R, Giugliano F, 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.
• 35. 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;60:388-92.
• 36. Karami H, Mohammadi R, Lotfi B. A study on comparative outcomes of percutaneous nephrolithotomy in prone, supine, and flank positions. World J Urol 2013;31:1225-30.
• 37. 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;27:705-9.
• 38. Siev M, Motamedinia P, Leavitt D, Fakhoury M, Barcohana K, Hoenig D, et al. Does Peak Inspiratory Pressure Increase in the Prone Position? An Analysis Related to Body Mass Index. J Urol 2015;194:1302-6.
• 39. Koo BC, Burtt G, Burgess NA. Percutaneous stone surgery in the obese: outcome stratified according to body mass index. BJU Int 2004;93:1296-9.
• 40. Keheila M, Leavitt D, Galli R, Motamedinia P, Theckumparampil N, Siev M, et al. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy in super obese patients (body mass index >/= 50 kg/m(2)): overcoming the challenges. BJU Int 2016;117:300-6.
• 41. Zhou X, Sun X, Chen X, Gong X, Yang Y, Chen C, et al. Effect of Obesity on Outcomes of Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy in Renal Stone Management: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Urol Int 2017;98:382-90.
• 42. Fuller A, Razvi H, Denstedt JD, Nott L, Hendrikx A, Luke M, et al. The clinical research office of the endourological society percutaneous nephrolithotomy global study: Outcomes in the morbidly obese patient - a case control analysis. Can Urol Assoc J 2014;8:E393-7.
• 43. Melo PAS, Vicentini FC, Perrella R, Murta CB, Claro JFA. Comparative study of percutaneous nephrolithotomy performed in the traditional prone position and in three different supine positions. Int Braz J Urol 2019;45:108-17.
• 44. St-Laurent MP, Doizi S, Rosec M, Terrasa JB, Villa L, Traxer O, et al. Radiation exposure in prone vs. modified supine position during PCNL: Results with an anthropomorphic model. Can Urol Assoc J 2019;13:246-49.
• 45. Ozdemir H, Erbin A, Sahan M, Savun M, Cubuk A, Yazici O, et al. Comparison of supine and prone miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the treatment of lower pole, middle pole and renal pelvic stones: A matched pair analysis. Int Braz J Urol 2019;45:956-64.
• 46. Adhikari MB, Karna S, Kasaju A. Safety and Efficacy of Bilateral Simultaneous Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy. J Nepal Health Res Counc 2019;17:114-18.
• 47. Sofer M, Proietti S, Bar-Yosef Y, Dekalo S, Rosso M, Mintz I, et al. Assessment of bilateral supine and prone tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Can J Urol 2017;24:9114-20.
• 48. Roodneshin F, Poor Zamany Nejat Kermany M, Rostami P, Ahmadzadeh N, Gharaei B, Kamranmanesh MR. Comparison of Hemodynamic Stability and Pain Control in Lateral and Prone Positions in Patients undergoing Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy; a Randomized Controlled Trial Study. Urol J 2019.
• 49. Mourmouris P, Berdempes M, Markopoulos T, Lazarou L, Tzelves L, Skolarikos A. Patient positioning during percutaneous nephrolithotomy: what is the current best practice? Res Rep Urol 2018;10:189-93.
• 50. Mak DK, Smith Y, Buchholz N, El-Husseiny T. What is better in percutaneous nephrolithotomy - Prone or supine? A systematic review. Arab J Urol 2016;14:101-7.
• 51. Salvado JA, Mendez CE. Supine versus prone position for percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Minerva Urol Nefrol 2015;67:325-33.
• 52. Cracco CM, Alken P, Scoffone CM. Positioning for percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Curr Opin Urol 2016;26:81-7.