Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Imaging in Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Supine Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy and ECIRS

Abstract

With regard to patient selection for PNL, planning of percutaneous access, intraoperative guidance and postoperative evaluation of potential complications and stone-free status, imaging plays a crucial role. In this chapter the role of current imaging modalities is discussed, and focus is made on how appropriate imaging studies may lead to safe and efficacious percutaneous renal surgery. The role of the various preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative imaging tools is discussed. Furthermore, possible future scenarios with regard to imaging in PNL are briefly touched.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Park S, Pearle MS (2006) Imaging for percutaneous renal access and management of renal calculi. Urol Clin North Am 33:353–364

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Jackman SV, Potter SR, Regan F, Jarrett TW (2000) Plain abdominal X-ray versus computerized tomography screening: sensitivity for stone localization after non-enhanced spiral computerized tomography. J Urol 164:308–310

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Ray AA, Chung D-G, Honey JD (2009) Percutaneous nephrolithotomy in prone and prone-flexed positions: anatomic considerations. J Endourol 23:1607–1614

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Honey JD, Wiesenthal JD, Ghiculette D, Pace SP, Ray AA, Pace KT (2011) Comparison of supracostal versus infracostal percutaneous nephrolithotomy using the novel prone-flexed position. J Endourol 25:947–954

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Miller OF, Rineer SK, Reichard SR, Buckley RG, Donovan SM, Graham IR, Goff WB, Kane CJ (1998) Prospective comparison of unenhanced spiral computed tomography and intravenous urogram in the evaluation of acute flank pain. Urology 52:982–987

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Pfister SA, Deckhart A, Laschke S, Dellas S, Otto U, Buitrago C, Roth J, Wiesner W, Bontgartz G, Gasser TC (2003) Unenhanced helical computed tomography vs intravenous urography in patients with acute flank pain: accuracy and economic impact in a randomized prospective trial. Eur Radiol 13:2513–2520

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Shine S (2008) Urinary calculus IVU vs. CT renal stone? A critical appraised topic. Comput Biol Med 33:41–43

    Google Scholar 

  8. Patel U, Walkden RM, Ghani KR, Anson K (2009) Three-dimensional CT pyelography for planning of percutaneous nephrolithotomy: accuracy of stone measurement, stone depiction and pelvicalyceal reconstruction. Eur Radiol 19:1280–1288

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Nolte-Emsting C, Cowan N (2006) Understanding multislice CT urography techniques: many roads lead to Rome. Eur Radiol 16:2670–2686

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Thiruchelvam N, Mostafid H, Ubhayakar G (2005) Planning percutaneous nephrolithotomy using multidetector computed tomography urography, multiplanar reconstruction and three-dimensional reformatting. BJU Int 95:1280–1284

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Scoffone CM, Cracco CM, Cossu M, Grande S, Poggio M, Scarpa RM (2008) Endoscopic combined intrarenal surgery in Galdakao-modified supine Valdivia position: a new standard for percutaneous nephrolithotomy? Eur Urol 54:1393–1403

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Heyns CF, van Geldern WF (1990) 3-dimensional imaging of the pelvicalyceal system by computerized tomographic reconstruction. J Urol 144:1335–1338

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Osther PJ, Razvi H, Liatsikos E, Averch T, Crisci A, Garcia JL, Mandal A, de la Rosette JJ (2011) Percutaneous nephrolithotomy among patients with renal anomalies: patient characteristics and outcomes; a subgroup analysis of the clinical research office of the endourological society global percutaneous nephrolithotomy study. J Endourol 25:1627–1632

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Graumann O, Osther SS, Spasojevic D, Osther PJ (2012) Can the CT planning image determine whether a kidney stone is radiopaque on a plain KUB? Urol Res 40:333–337

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Kalb B, Sharma P, Salman K, Ogan K, Martin DR (2010) Acute abdominal pain: is there a potential role for MRI in the setting of the emergency department in a patient with renal calculi? J Magn Reson Imaging 32:1012–1023

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Hopper KD, Sherman JL, Lurthke JM, Ghaed N (1987) The retrorenal colon in the supine and prone patient. Radiology 162:443–446

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Chalasani V, Bissoon D, Bhuvanagir AK, Mizzi A, Dunn IB (2010) Should PCNL patients have a CT in the prone position preoperatively? Can J Urol 17:5082–5086

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Azhar RA, Szymanski KM, Lemercier E, Valenti D, Andonian S, Anidjar M (2011) Visceral organ-to-percutaneous tract distance is shorter when patients are placed in the prone position on bolsters compared with the supine position. J Endourol 25:687–690

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Tuttle DN, Yeh BM, Meng MV, Breiman RS, Stoller ML, Coakley FV (2005) 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 16:1489–1492

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Ng CS, Herts BR, Streem SB (2005) Percutaneous access to upper pole renal stones: role of prone 3-dimensional computerized tomography in inspiratory and expiratory phases. J Urol 173:124–126

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Zarse CA, Hameed TA, Jackson ME, Pischalnikov YA, Lingemen JE, McAteer JA, Williams JC Jr (2007) CT visible internal stone structure, but not Hounsfield unit value, of calcium oxalate monohydrate (COM) calculi predicts lithotripsy fragility in vitro. Urol Res 35:201–206

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Kim SC, Burns EK, Lingeman JE, Paterson RF, McAteer JA, Williams JC Jr (2007) Cystine calculi: correlation of CT-visible structure, CT number, and stone morphology with fragmentation by shock wave lithotripsy. Urol Res 35:319–324

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Evans HJ, Wollin TA (2001) The management of urinary calculi in pregnancy. Curr Opin Urol 11:379–384

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Kalogeropoulou C, Kallidonis P, Liatsikos EN (2009) Imaging in percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Endourol 23:1571–1577

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Ko R, Soucy F, Denstedt JD, Razvi H (2007) Percutaneous nephrolithotomy made easier: a practical guide, tips and tricks. BJU Int 101:535–539

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Ibarluzea G, Scoffone CM, Cracco CM, Poggio M, Porpiglia F, Terrone C, Astobieta A, Camargo I, Gamarra M, Tempia A, Valdivia Uria JG, Scarpa RM (2007) Supine Valdivia and modified lithotomy position for simultaneous anterograde and retrograde endourological access. BJU Int 100:233–236

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Eisner BH, Cloyd J, Stoller ML (2009) Lower-pole fluoroscopy-guided percutaneous renal access: which calix is posterior? J Endourol 23:1621–1625

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Osman M, Wendt-Nordahl G, Heger K, Michel MS, Alken P, Knoll T (2005) Percutaneous nephrolithotomy with ultrasonography-guided renal access: experience from over 300 cases. BJU Int 96:875–878

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Ghani KR, Patel U, Anson K (2009) Computed tomography for percutaneous access. J Endourol 23:1633–1639

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Magnusson A, Radecka E, Lönnemark M, Raland H (2005) Computed-tomography-guided punctures using a new guidance device. Acta Radiol 46:505–509

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Hellawell GO, Mutch SJ, Thevendran G, Wells E, Morgan RJ (2005) Radiation exposure and the urologist: what are the risks? J Urol 174:948–952

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Ogan K, Corwin SC, Smith T, Watumull LM, Mullican MA, Cadeddu JA, Pearle MS (2003) Sensitivity of chest fluoroscopy compared with chest CT and chest radiography for diagnosing hydropneumothorax in association with percutaneous nephrostolithotomy. Urology 62:988–992

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Traxer O (2009) Management of injury to the bowel during percutaneous stone removal. J Endourol 23:1777–1780

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Goswami AK, Shrivatava P, Mukherjee A, Sharma SK (2001) Management of colonic perforation during percutaneous nephrolithotomy in horseshoe kidney. J Endourol 15:989–991

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Valdivia JG, Scarpa RM, Duvdevani M, Gross AJ, Nadler RB, Nutahare K, de la Rosette JJ (2011) Supine versus prone position during percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a report from the Clinical Research Office of the Endourological Society Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy Global Study. J Endourol 25:1619–1625

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Jain V, Ganpule A, Vyas J, Muthu V, Sabnis MRB, Rajapurkar MM, Desai MR (2009) Management of non-neoplastic renal hemorrhage by transarterial embolization. Urology 74:522–527

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Lu M-H, Pu X-Y, Gao X, Zhou X-F, Qiu J-G, Si-Tu J (2010) A comparative study of clinical value of single B-mode ultrasound guidance and B-mode combined with color doppler ultrasound guidance in mini-invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy to decrease hemorrhagic complications. Urology 76:815–820

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Portis AJ, Laliberte MA, Drake S, Holtz C, Rosenberg MS, Bretzke CA (2006) Intraoperative fragment detection during percutaneous nephrolithotomy: evaluation of high magnification rotational fluoroscopy combined with aggressive nephroscopy. J Urol 175:162–166

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Gettman MT, Pearle MS (2000) Evaluation of residual stones following percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Braz J Urol 26:579–583

    Google Scholar 

  40. Preminger GM (1999) Editorial comment. J Urol 162:314

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Denstedt JD, Clayman RV, Picus DD (1991) Comparison of endoscopic and radiological residual fragment rate following percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Urol 145:703–705

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Pearle MS, Watamull LM, Mullican MA (1999) Sensitivity of noncontrast helical computerized tomography and plain film radiography compared to flexible nephroscopy for detecting residual fragments after percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Urol 162:23–26

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Park J, Hong B, Park T, Park HK (2007) Effectiveness of noncontrast computed tomography in evaluation of residual stones after percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Endourol 21:684–687

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Osman Y, El-Tabey N, Rafai H, Elnahas A, Shoma A, Eraky I, Kenwy M, El-Kapany H (2008) Detection of residual stones after percutaneous nephrolithotomy: role of nonenhanced spiral computerized tomography. J Urol 179:198–200

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Narepalem N, Sundaram C, Boridy IC, Yan Y, Heiken JP, Clayman RV (2002) Comparison of helical computerized tomography and plain radiography for estimating urinary stone size. J Urol 167:1235–1238

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Tisdale BE, Siemens DR, Lysack J, Nolan RL, Wilson JW (2007) Correlation of CT scan versus plain radiography for measuring urinary stone dimensions. Can J Urol 14:3489–3492

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Fowler KAB, Locken JA, Duchesne JH, Williamson MR (2002) US for detecting renal calculi with nonenhanced CT as a reference standard. Radiology 222:109–133

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Ulusan S, Koc Z, Tokmak N (2007) Accuracy of sonography for detecting renal stone: comparison with CT. J Clin Ultrasound 35:256–261

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Ferrandino MN, Bagrodia A, Pierre SA, Scales CD, Rampersaud E, Pearle MS, Preminger GM (2009) Radiation exposure in the acute and short term management of urolithiasisat 2 academic centers. J Urol 181:668–673

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Hyams ES, Shah O (2010) Evaluation and follow-up of patients with urinary lithiasis: minimizing radiation exposure. Curr Urol Rep 11:80–86

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Boctor EM, Choti MA, Burdette EC, Webster RJ (2008) Three-dimensional ultrasound-guided robotic needle placement: an experimental evaluation. Int J Med Robot Comput Assist Surg 4:180–191

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Mozer P, Conort P, Leroy A, Baumann M, Payan Y, Troccaz J, Chartier-Kastler E, Richard F (2007) Aid to percutaneous renal access by virtual projection of the ultrasound puncture tract onto fluoroscopic images. J Endourol 21:460–465

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. de la Rosette JJMCH, Laguna MP, Rassweiler JJ, Conort P (2008) Training in percutaneous nephrolithotomy – a critical review. Eur Urol 54:994–1003

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Gupta R, Cheung AC, Bartling SH, Lisauskas J, Grasruck M, Leidecker C, Schmidt B, Flohr T, Brady TJ (2008) Flat-panel volume CT: fundamental principles, technology, and applications. Radiographics 28:2009–2022

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Su L-M, Stoianovici D, Jarrett TW, Patriciu A, Roberts WW, Caddeddu JA, Ramakumar SY, Solomon SB, Kavoussi LR (2002) Robotic percutaneous access to the kidney: comparison with standard manual access. J Endourol 16:471–475

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Challacombe B, Patriciu A, Glass J, Aron M, Jarrett T, Kim F, Pinto P, Stoianovici D, Smeeton N, Tiptaft R, Kavoussi L, Dasgupta P (2005) A randomized controlled trial versus robotic and telerobotic access to the kidney as the first step in percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Comput Aided Surg 10:165–171

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Hernandez DJ, Sinkov VA, Roberts WW, Allaf ME, Patriciu A, Jarrett TW, Kavoussi LR, Stoianovici D (2001) Measurement of bio-impedance with a smart needle to confirm percutaneous kidney access. J Urol 166:1520–1523

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Fredericia Hospital – A part of Hospital Littlebelt, University of Southern Denmark, Dronningensgade 97, DK-7000, Fredericia, Denmark

    Susanne Sloth Osther MD & Palle Jørn Sloth Osther MD, PhD

Authors
  1. Susanne Sloth Osther MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Palle Jørn Sloth Osther MD, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Palle Jørn Sloth Osther MD, PhD .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Dept. Of Urology, Cottolengo Hospital, Torino, Italy

    Cesare Marco Scoffone

  2. Service d’Urologie, CHU Henri Mondor, Créteil cedex, France

    András Hoznek

  3. Cottolengo Hospital, Torino, Italy

    Cecilia Maria Cracco

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer-Verlag France

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Osther, S.S., Osther, P.J.S. (2014). Imaging in Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy. In: Scoffone, C., Hoznek, A., Cracco, C. (eds) Supine Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy and ECIRS. Springer, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-2-8178-0459-0_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-2-8178-0459-0_7

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Paris

  • Print ISBN: 978-2-8178-0359-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-2-8178-0459-0

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation