A contemporary lower pole approach for complete staghorn calculi: outcomes and efficacy

  • Kyle A. Blum
  • Egor Parkhomenko
  • Julie Thai
  • Timothy Tran
  • Mantu Gupta
Original Article
  • 47 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) is the preferred surgical treatment for staghorn stones. Two approaches are commonly employed to gain access into the collecting system which consists of either an upper pole (UP) approach or lower pole (LP) approach. However, opinions vary on which approach offers the best access and outcome. In this study, we aim to challenge the traditional paradigm that staghorn stones are most effectively treated through a prone UP approach. We herein report our institutional experience using a prone LP access in PCNL for patients with complete staghorn stones.

Methods

Data were prospectively collected over 3 years on 473 PCNL procedures, of which 76 patients had complete staghorn calculi (five or more calyces). Operative and peri-operative outcomes were analyzed to compare a modified LP approach with the more widely accepted UP approach.

Results

A total of 59/76 (77.6%) patients had LP access. There was no difference in the ability of completing the surgery utilizing a single tract as opposed to multiple tracts (74.6% of LP patients vs. 76.5% of UP patients). Stone-free rates for LP and UP access were similar (74.5 versus 70.5%, respectively; p = 0.760. Complication rates were lower for LP access vs. UP access (3.4 vs. 23.5%, p = 0.02) with two pulmonary complications in the UP group. Overall median operative time was not significantly different between LP and UP access (112.0 vs. 126.0 min, p = 0.486).

Conclusions

Prone LP access demonstrated similar efficacy with decreased morbidity in patients with complete staghorn calculi compared to prone UP access.

Keywords

Nephrolithiasis Calculi Lower pole PCNL Complete staghorn Access Upper Pole Stones Complex stones Kidney Renal 

Notes

Author contributions

KAB: project development, data collection, data analysis, and manuscript writing. EP: data collection, data analysis, and manuscript writing. JT: data analysis and manuscript writing. TT: manuscript writing. MG: project development and manuscript writing.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Ethical approval

For this type of study, formal consent is not required.

References

  1. 1.
    Preminger GM, Assimos DG, Lingman JE, Nakada SY, Pearle MS, Wolf JS (2005) Chapter 1: AUA guideline on management of staghorn calculi: diagnosis and treatment recommendations. J Urol 173(6):1991–2000CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Shah HN, Hegde SS, Shah JN, Bansal MB (2006) Safety and efficacy of supracostal access in tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Endourol 20(12):1016–1021CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sukumar S, Nair B, Ginil KP, Sanjeevan KV, Sanjay BH (2008) Supracostal access for percutaneous nephrolithotomy: less morbid, more effective. Int Urol Nephrol 40(2):263–267CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Netto NR Jr, Ikonomidis J, Ikari O, Claro JA (2005) Comparative study of percutaneous access for staghorn calculi. Urology 65(4):659–662CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Munver R, Delvecchio FC, Newman GE, Preminger GM (2001) Critical analysis of supracostal access for percutaneous renal surgery. J Urol 166(4):1242–1246CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    El-Nahas AR, Shokeir A, El-Ammsy AM, Mohsen T, Shoma A, Eraky I et al (2007) Post-percutaneous nephrolithotomy extensive hemorrhage: a study of risk factors. J Urol 177(2):576–579CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hopper KD, Yakes WF (1990) The posterior intercostal approach for percutaneous renal procedures: risk of puncturing the lung, spleen, and liver as determined by CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 154(1):115–117CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Stening SG, Bourne S (1998) Supracostal percutaneous nephrolithotomy for upper pole caliceal calculi. J Endourol 12(4):359–362CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gupta M, Bellman G, Smith A (1997) Massive hemorrhage from renal vein injury during percutaneous renal surgery: endourological management. J Urol 157(3):795–797CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kukreja R, Desai M, Patel S, Bapat S, Desai M (2004) Factors affecting blood loss during percutaneous nephrolithotomy: prospective study. J Endourol 18(8):715–722CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Olvera-Posada D, Tailly T, Alenezi H, Violette P, Nott L et al (2015) Risk factors for postoperative complications of percutaneous nephrolithotomy at a tertiary referral center. J Urol 194(6):1646–1651.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2015.06.095 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lam HS, Lingeman JE, Barron M, Newman DM, Mosbaugh PG et al (1992) Staghorn calculi: analysis of treatment results between initial percutaneous nephrostolithotomy and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy monotherapy with reference to surface area. J Urol 147(5):1219–1225CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lipsky MJ, Shapiro EY, Cha DY, Gupta M (2013) Modified-PCNL without modified instruments: a description of technique. J Endourol 27(6):684–687CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240(2):205–213CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Segura JW, Preminger GM, Assimos DG, Dretler SP, Kahn RI et al (1994) Nephrolithiasis Clinical Guidelines Panel summary report on the management of staghorn calculi. The American Urological Association Nephrolithiasis Clinical Guidelines Panel. J Urol 151(6):1648–1651CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Morris DS, Wei JT, Taub DA, Dunn RL, Wolf JS Jr et al (2006) Temporal trends in the use of percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Urol 175(5):1731–1736CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ghani KR, Sammon JD, Bhojani N, Karakiewicz P, Sun M et al (2013) Trends in percutaneous nephrolithotomy use and outcomes in the United States. J Urol 190(2):558–564CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Stamatelou KK, Francis ME, Jones CA, Nyberg LM, Curhan GC (2003) Time trends in reported prevalence of kidney stones in the United States: 1976–1994. Kidney Int 63(5):1817–1823CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Al-Kohlany KM, Shokeir AA, Mosbah A, Mohsen T, Shoma AM et al (2005) Treatment of complete staghorn stones: a prospective randomized comparison of open surgery versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Urol 173(2):469–473CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lojanapiwat B, Prasopsuk S (2006) Upper-pole access for percutaneous nephrolithotomy: comparison of supracostal and infracostal approaches. J Endourol 20(7):491–494CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gupta R, Kumar R, Kapoor A, Srivastava A, Mandhani A (2002) Prospective evaluation of safety and efficacy of the supracostal approach for percutaneous nephrolithotomy. BJU Int 90(9):809–813CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sofer M, Giusti G, Proietti S, Mintz I, Kabha M et al (2016) Upper calyx approachability through a lower calyx access for prone versus supine percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Urol 195(2):377–382CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wosnitzer M, Xavier K, Gupta M (2009) Novel use of a ureteroscopic stone entrapment device to prevent antegrade stone migration during percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Endourol 23(2):203–207CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Williams SK, Leveillee RJ (2008) Management of staghorn calculus: single puncture with judicious use of the flexible nephroscope. Curr Opin Urol 18(2):224–228CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Williams SK, Leveillee RJ (2008) A single percutaneous access and flexible nephroscopy is the best treatment for a full staghorn calculus. J Endourol 22(9):1835–1837CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Katsumi H, Gupta M (2010) Rigid and Flexible Nephroscopy. In: Smith AD, Preminger G, Badlani G, Kavoussi LR (eds) Smith’s textbook of endourology, 3rd edn. Wiley-Blackwell Publishing, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Graversen JA, Mues AC, Gupta M (2013) Flexible renal nephroscopy: overcoming the difficulties. In: Al-Kandari A, Desai M, Shokeir A, Shoma A, Smith A (eds) Difficult cases in endourology. Springer, London.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84882-083-8_9 Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Walsh R, Kelly CR, Gupta M (2010) Percutaneous renal surgery: use of flexible nephroscopy. J Endourol Part B Videourol.  https://doi.org/10.1089/vid.2010 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of UrologyIcahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai HospitalNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations