Advertisement

Positioning During PNL

  • András HoznekEmail author
Chapter
  • 39 Downloads

Abstract

Classical percutaneous nephrolithotomy consists of several steps executed in a sequence beginning in the lithotomy position followed by a second one in the prone position. For many years, this represented the standard technique. A number of limitations like patient obesity and the necessity of puncturing the upper pole led to several modifications. The lateral position and Bart’s position were recommended for obese patients. Prone flexed position shifts the kidney downward, facilitating access to the upper pole. With the advent of miniaturized flexible instruments, simultaneous antegrade and retrograde access to the kidney became possible. Split leg prone position was proposed for such a dual access. But the main change of paradigm was the arrival of the supine Valdivia position with its variants, especially the Galdakao-modified supine Valdivia position. The latter is a modification of the lithotomy position with the patient slightly tilted toward the site opposite to the stone and the ipsilateral arm crossing the chest.

All these different positions were thoroughly evaluated with comparative studies. No superiority of prone or supine variants could be established regarding stone-free and complication rates; however, the supine position reduces operative time.

Finally, the decision regarding positioning belongs to the surgeon, taking into account his personal experience and preferences and his operative environment.

Keywords

Percutaneous nephrolithotomy Urinary stone disease Prone position Supine position ECIRS Ergonomy Stone-free rate Operative time Complications 

References

  1. 1.
    Dos Santos RLA, Pereira-Caldos J. L’artériographie des membres de l’aorte et de ses branches abdominales. Soc Natl Chir Bull Meme. 1929;55:587–601.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Goodwin WE. A memoir of percutaneous access to the kidney (antegrade pyelography and percutaneous nephrostomy). J Endourol. 1991;5:4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Goodwin WE, Casey WC, Woolf W. Percutaneous trocar (needle) nephrostomy in hydronephrosis. J Am Med Assoc. 1955;157:891–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Castaneda-Zuniga WR, Clayman R, Smith A, Rusnak B, Herrera M, Amplatz K. Nephrostolithotomy: percutaneous techniques for urinary calculus removal. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1982;139:721–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Valdivia Uria JG, Lachares Santamaria E, Villarroya Rodriguez S, Taberner Llop J, Abril Baquero G, Aranda Lassa JM. [Percutaneous nephrolithectomy: simplified technic (preliminary report)]. Arch Esp Urol. 1987;40:177–80.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ibarluzea G, Scoffone CM, Cracco CM, Poggio M, Porpiglia F, Terrone C, et al. Supine Valdivia and modified lithotomy position for simultaneous anterograde and retrograde endourological access. BJU Int. 2007;100:233–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Scoffone CM, Cracco CM, Cossu M, Grande S, Poggio M, Scarpa RM. Endoscopic combined intrarenal surgery in Galdakao-modified supine Valdivia position: a new standard for percutaneous nephrolithotomy? Eur Urol. 2008;54:1393–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lehman T, Bagley DH. Reverse lithotomy: modified prone position for simultaneous nephroscopic and ureteroscopic procedures in women. Urology. 1988;32:529–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Grasso M, Nord R, Bagley DH. Prone split leg and flank roll positioning: simultaneous antegrade and retrograde access to the upper urinary tract. J Endourol. 1993;7:307–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ray AA, Chung DG, Honey RJ. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the prone and prone-flexed positions: anatomic considerations. J Endourol. 2009;23:1607–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kerbl K, Clayman RV, Chandhoke PS, Urban DA, De Leo BC, Carbone JM. Percutaneous stone removal with the patient in a flank position. J Urol. 1994;151:686–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Moraitis K, Philippou P, El-Husseiny T, Wazait H, Masood J, Buchholz N. Simultaneous antegrade/retrograde upper urinary tract access: Bart’s modified lateral position for complex upper tract endourologic pathologic features. Urology. 2012;79:287–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bach C, Goyal A, Kumar P, Kachrilas S, Papatsoris AG, Buchholz N, et al. The Barts ‘flank-free’ modified supine position for percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Urol Int. 2012;89:365–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sofer M, Giusti G, Proietti S, Mintz I, Kabha M, Matzkin H, et al. Upper calyx approachability through a lower calyx access for prone versus supine percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Urol. 2016;195:377–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Addla SK, Rajpal S, Sutcliffe N, Adeyoju A. A simple aid to improve patient positioning during percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2008;90:433–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Miano R, Scoffone C, De Nunzio C, Germani S, Cracco C, Usai P, et al. Position: prone or supine is the issue of percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Endourol. 2010;24:931–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    de la Rosette J, Assimos D, Desai M, Gutierrez J, Lingeman J, Scarpa R, et al. The Clinical Research Office of the Endourological Society percutaneous nephrolithotomy global study: indications, complications, and outcomes in 5803 patients. J Endourol. 2011;25:11–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kamphuis GM, Baard J, Westendarp M, de la Rosette JJ. Lessons learned from the CROES percutaneous nephrolithotomy global study. World J Urol. 2015;33:223–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Yamaguchi A, Skolarikos A, Buchholz NP, Chomon GB, Grasso M, Saba P, et al. Operating times and bleeding complications in percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a comparison of tract dilation methods in 5,537 patients in the Clinical Research Office of the Endourological Society Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy Global Study. J Endourol. 2011;25:933–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wu P, Wang L, Wang K. Supine versus prone position in percutaneous nephrolithotomy for kidney calculi: a meta-analysis. Int Urol Nephrol. 2011;43(1):67–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Li J, Gao L, Li Q, Zhang Y, Jiang Q. Supine versus prone position for percutaneous nephrolithotripsy: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Int J Surg. 2019;66:62–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Service d’Urologie CHU Henri MondorCréteilFrance

Personalised recommendations