Prospective Comparative Analysis of Supine Versus Prone Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy in Patients with Complex Renal Stone Disease and Difficult Anatomy.

0 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY Urology research & practice Pub Date : 2024-03-01 DOI:10.5152/tud.2024.24010
Sunirmal Choudhury, Prakhar Patel, Gourab Kundu, Shahbaaz Ahmed, Malay Kumar Bera
{"title":"Prospective Comparative Analysis of Supine Versus Prone Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy in Patients with Complex Renal Stone Disease and Difficult Anatomy.","authors":"Sunirmal Choudhury, Prakhar Patel, Gourab Kundu, Shahbaaz Ahmed, Malay Kumar Bera","doi":"10.5152/tud.2024.24010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong> In complex renal stone disease, few studies have shown that supine percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) is not inferior to prone PCNL. In our study, we evaluated the safety and efficacy of supine versus prone PCNL in patients with complex renal stone disease and patients with difficult anatomy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong> We prospectively analyzed 106 patients over 15 months from October 2022 to December 2023 and divided them as group S (Calcutta position supine arm) and group P (classical prone arm) by simple randomization. The measured data included body mass index (BMI), stone size, location of stone, number of punctures/ access, tract length, bleeding, operative time, stone-free rate (SFR), length of hospital stay, and postoperative complications.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong> The operative time was 104.722 ± (34.48) versus 124.30 ± (22.67) minutes (group S vs. group P), which was significant (P=.01). The nephroscopy time was 89.722 ± 34.55 in group S vs. 92.212 ± 20.18 minutes, which was also significant (P = .01). The mean postoperative hospital stay was 3.889 ± 1.09 and 4.558 ± 1.33 days in supine and prone group (P = .021), respectively. Four patients in group S required re-look PCNL in comparison to 8 in group P. Overall SFR at 1 month was 76.92% and 68.51% (P .331), respectively in case of group S and P.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong> The study revealed that supine position in Calcutta position is a viable alternative to classical prone position even in patients with complex renal stone and patients with difficult anatomy as major complications are less, SFR is higher, and need of auxiliary procedures are rare.</p>","PeriodicalId":101337,"journal":{"name":"Urology research & practice","volume":"50 2","pages":"107-114"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11232091/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Urology research & practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5152/tud.2024.24010","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective:  In complex renal stone disease, few studies have shown that supine percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) is not inferior to prone PCNL. In our study, we evaluated the safety and efficacy of supine versus prone PCNL in patients with complex renal stone disease and patients with difficult anatomy.

Methods:  We prospectively analyzed 106 patients over 15 months from October 2022 to December 2023 and divided them as group S (Calcutta position supine arm) and group P (classical prone arm) by simple randomization. The measured data included body mass index (BMI), stone size, location of stone, number of punctures/ access, tract length, bleeding, operative time, stone-free rate (SFR), length of hospital stay, and postoperative complications.

Results:  The operative time was 104.722 ± (34.48) versus 124.30 ± (22.67) minutes (group S vs. group P), which was significant (P=.01). The nephroscopy time was 89.722 ± 34.55 in group S vs. 92.212 ± 20.18 minutes, which was also significant (P = .01). The mean postoperative hospital stay was 3.889 ± 1.09 and 4.558 ± 1.33 days in supine and prone group (P = .021), respectively. Four patients in group S required re-look PCNL in comparison to 8 in group P. Overall SFR at 1 month was 76.92% and 68.51% (P .331), respectively in case of group S and P.

Conclusion:  The study revealed that supine position in Calcutta position is a viable alternative to classical prone position even in patients with complex renal stone and patients with difficult anatomy as major complications are less, SFR is higher, and need of auxiliary procedures are rare.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
复杂肾结石病变和解剖困难患者仰卧位与俯卧位经皮肾镜取石术的前瞻性对比分析
目的: 对于复杂性肾结石疾病,很少有研究表明仰卧位经皮肾镜取石术(PCNL)并不逊色于俯卧位PCNL。在我们的研究中,我们评估了仰卧位 PCNL 与俯卧位 PCNL 在复杂性肾结石疾病患者和解剖结构复杂的患者中的安全性和有效性: 我们在 2022 年 10 月至 2023 年 12 月的 15 个月中对 106 例患者进行了前瞻性分析,并通过简单随机分配法将其分为 S 组(加尔各答体位仰卧臂)和 P 组(经典俯卧臂)。测量数据包括体重指数(BMI)、结石大小、结石位置、穿刺/入路次数、通道长度、出血量、手术时间、无石率(SFR)、住院时间和术后并发症: 手术时间为 104.722 ± (34.48) 分钟对 124.30 ± (22.67) 分钟(S 组对 P 组),差异显著(P=0.01)。肾镜检查时间为 89.722 ± 34.55 分钟(S 组)对 92.212 ± 20.18 分钟(P 组),差异也很大(P=0.01)。仰卧组和俯卧组的术后平均住院时间分别为 3.889 ± 1.09 天和 4.558 ± 1.33 天(P = .021)。S 组和 P 组 1 个月的总 SFR 分别为 76.92% 和 68.51% (P .331): 研究显示,即使是复杂肾结石患者和解剖结构复杂的患者,加尔各答仰卧位也是传统俯卧位的可行替代体位,因为主要并发症较少,SFR 较高,而且很少需要辅助手术。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Prognostic Value of TGF-β Expression in Bladder Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Reporting and Grading of Complications in Urological Surgery: Current Trends and Future Perspectives. "Minho Technique" for Laparoscopic Radical Cystectomy with Intracorporeal Ileal Conduit. A New Sperm Concentration Threshold for Y Chromosome Microdeletion Analysis in Infertile Men: Could It Be Azoopermia? Hounsfield Unit on Preoperative Computed Tomography as an Indicator of Prognosis in Patients with Liposarcoma.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1