Murat KESKE, Mehmet YILDIZHAN, Taha ÇETİN, Mehmet YİĞİT YALÇIN, Arslan ARDIÇOĞLU3, Davut KAMACI, Uygar MİÇOOĞULLARI, Özer Ural ÇAKICI, Furkan UMUT KILIÇ

Prone versus Barts “flank-free” modified supine percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a match-pair analysis

Background/aim: In this study, we aimed to compare the results of prone and Barts “flank-free” modified supine percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) operations in our clinic. Materials and methods: The data from patients that underwent Barts “flank-free” modified supine PCNL (BS-PCNL) (n = 52) between June 2018 and July 2020 and prone PCNL (P-PCNL) (n = 286) between April 2014 and June 2018 were retrospectively evaluated. Of those 286 patients, 104 patients whose sex, age, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiology score, stone localization, stone size, and hydronephrosis matched the BS-PCNL group in a 1:2 ratio were included in the study. The groups were compared in terms of intraoperative outcome, complication rates, and stone-free rates. Results: The mean age of all patients (58 females, 98 males) included in the study was 41.8 ± 15.2 years, and the mean body mass index (BMI) was 24.7 ± 2.9 kg/m2 . The mean operation time was significantly shorter in the BS-PCNL group than in the P-PCNL group (80.2 ± 15.1 min vs. 92.4 ± 22.7 min and p = 0.01). There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of fluoroscopy time, intraoperative complications, postoperative complications, and stone-free rates. Conclusion: Our study shows that BS-PCNL is an effective and safe method that significantly reduces the operation time and should be considered as one of the primary treatment options for patients scheduled for PCNL.Key words: Percutaneous nephrolithotomy, prone, supine, Barts “flank-free” modified supine position, stone-free rate, kidney stone

PDF

___

1. Assimos D, Krambeck A, Miller NL, Monga M, Murad MH et al. Surgical management of stones: American Urological Association/Endourological Society Guideline, PART II. Journal of Urology 2016; 196: 1161-1169. doi: 10.1016/j. juro.2016.05.090
2. Fernstrom I, Johansson B. Percutaneous pyelolithotomy. A new extraction technique. Scandinavian Journal of Urology and Nephrology 1976; 10: 257-259. doi: 10.1080/21681805.1976.11882084
3. Valdivia JG, Lachares Santamaria E, Villarroya Rodriguez S, Taberner LJ, Abril BG et al. Percutaneous nephrolithectomy: simplified technic (preliminary report). Archivos Espanoles de Urologia 1987; 40: 177-180. PMID: 3619512.
4. Ibarluzea G, Scoffone CM, Cracco CM, Poggio M, Porpiglia F et al. Supine Valdivia and modified lithotomy position for simultaneous anterograde and retrograde endourological access. British Journal of Urology International 2007; 100 (1): 233-236. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2007.06960.x.
5. De la Rosette JJ, Tsakiris P, Ferrandino MN, Elsakka AM, Rioja J et al. Beyond prone position in percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a comprehensive review. European Urology 2008; 54:1 262- 1269. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2008.08.012
6. Cracco CM, Scoffone CM. ECIRS (Endoscopic combined intrarenal surgery) in the Galdakaomodi ed supine Valdivia position: a new life for percutaneous surgery? World Journal of Urology 2011; 29: 821-827. doi: 10.1007/s00345-011-0790-0
7. Scoffone CM, Cracco CM. Invited review: the tale of ECIRS (endoscopic combined ıntrarenal surgery) in the Galdakaomodified supine Valdivia position. Urolithiasis 2018; 46: 115- 123. doi: 10.1007/s00240-017-1015-9
8. Falahatkar S, Asli MM, Emadi SA, Enshaei A, Pourhadi H et al. Complete supine percutaneous nephrolithotomy (csPCNL) in patients with and without a history of stone surgery: safety and effectiveness of csPCNL. Urological Research 2011; 39: 295- 301. doi: 10.1007/s00240-010-0341-y
9. Valdivia UJG, Valle GJ, López LJA, Villarroya RS, Ambroj NC et al. Technique and complications of percutaneous nephroscopy: experience with 557 patients in the supine position. Journal of Urology 1998; 160: 1975-1978 doi: 10.1016/s0022- 5347(01)62217-1
10. Papatsoris AG, Zaman F, Panah A, Masood J, El-Husseiny T et al. Simultaneous anterograde and retrograde endourologic access: ‘the Barts technique’. Journal of Endourology 2008; 22: 2665-2666. doi: 10.1089/end.2008.0283
11. Bach C, Goyal A, Kumar P, Kachrilas S, Papatsoris AG et al. The Barts ‘flank-free’ modified supine position for percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Urologia Internationalis 2012; 89: 365-368. doi: 10.1159/000341430
12. Satava RM. Identification and reduction of surgical error using simulation. Minimally Invasive Therapy & Allied Technologies 2005; 14: 257-261. doi: 10.1080/13645700500274112
13. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Annals of Surgery 2004; 240: 205-213. doi: 10.1097/01.sla.0000133083.54934.ae
14. Li J, Gao L, Li Q, Zhang Y, Jiang Q. Supine versus prone position for percutaneous nephrolithotripsy: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. International Journal of Surgery 2019; 66: 62-71. doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2019.04.016.
15. Zhang X, Xia L, Xu T, Wang X, Zhong S et al. Is the supine position superior to the prone position for percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL)?. Urolithiasis. 2014; 42 (1): 87-93. doi:10.1007/s00240-013-0614-3
16. Astroza G, Lipkin M, Neisius A, Preminger G, De Sio M et al. Effect of supine vs prone position on outcomes of percutaneous nephrolithotomy in staghorn calculi: results from the Clinical Research Ofice of the Endourology Society Study. Urology 2013; 82: 1240-1244. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2013.06.068
17. Gokce MI, Ibiş A, Sanci A, Akıncı A, Bağcı U et al. Comparison of supine and prone positions for percutaneous nephrolithotomy in treatment of staghorn stones. Urolithiasis 2017; 45: 603-608. doi: 10.1007/s00240-017-0977-y
18. Patel RM, Okhunov Z, Clayman RV, Landman J. Prone versus supine percutaneous nephrolithotomy: what is your position? Current Urology Reports 2017; 18: 26. doi: 10.1007/s11934- 017-0676-9
19. Al-Dessoukey AA, Moussa AS, Abdelbary AM, Zayed A, Abdallah R et al. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the oblique supine lithotomy position and prone position: a comparative study. Journal of Endourology 2014; 28: 1058- 1063. doi: 10.1089/end.2014.0078
20. Yuan D, Liu Y, Rao H, Cheng T, Sun Z et al. Supine versus prone position in percutaneous nephrolithotomy for kidney calculi: a meta-analysis. Journal of Endourology 2016; 30: 754- 763. doi: 10.1089/end.2015.0402
21. Falahatkar S, Mokhtari G, Teimoori M. An update on supine versus prone percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a meta-analysis. Urology Journal 2016; 13: 2814-2822. PMID: 27734421
22. Sharma G, Jangid DK, Yadav SS, Mathur R, Tomar V. Retrorenal colon: role in percutaneous access. Urolithiasis. 2015; 43: 171-175. doi: 10.1007/s00240-014-0733-5
23. Valdivia JG, Scarpa RM, Duvdevani M, Gross AJ, Nadler RB et al. Supine versus prone position during percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a report from the clinical research office of the endourological society percutaneous nephrolithotomy global study. Journal of Endourology 2011; 25: 1619-1625. doi: 10.1089/end.2011.0110
24. Liu L, Zheng S, Xu Y, Wei Q. Systematic review and metaanalysis of percutaneous nephrolithotomy for patients in the supine versus prone position. Journal of Endourology 2010; 24: 1941- 1946. doi: 10.1089/end.2010.0292