Comparative Study of Prone Position Variations for Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy

References

• EAU Guidelines. Presented at the EAU Annual Congress Amsterdam; 2022. ISBN 978-94-92671-16-5.
   Google Scholar
• Birowo P, Tendi W, Widyahening IS, Rasyid N, Atmoko W. Supine versus prone position in percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. F1000Res. 2020;9:231. PMID: 33014345; PMCID: PMC7509599. doi:10.12688/f1000research.22940.3
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gökce Mİ, Ibiş A, Sancı A, et al. Comparison of supine and prone positions for percutaneous nephrolithotomy in treatment of staghorn stones. Urolithiasis. 2017;45(6):603–608. doi:10.1007/s00240-017-0977-y
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Astroza G, Lipkin M, Neisius A, et al. Effect of supine vs prone position on outcomes of percutaneous nephrolithotomy in staghorn calculi: results from the clinical research office of the endourology society study. Urology. 2013;82(6):1240–1244. PubMed PMID: 24063939. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2013.06.068
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yuan D, Liu Y, Rao H, et al. Supine versus prone position in percutaneous nephrolithotomy for kidney calculi: a meta-analysis. J Endourol. 2016;30(7):754–763. PubMed PMID: 27072075. doi:10.1089/end.2015.0402
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ganpule AP, Vijayakumar M, Malpani A, Desai MR. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) a critical review. Int J Surg. 2016;36(Pt D):660–664. doi:10.1016/j.ijsu.2016.11.028
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Karaolides T, Moraitis K, Bach C, et al. Positions for percutaneous nephrolithotomy: thirty-five years of evolution. Arab J Urol. 2012;10(3):307–316. doi:10.1016/j.aju.2012.06.005
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Zhao Z, Fan J, Liu Y, de la Rosette J, Zeng G. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy: position, position, position! Urolithiasis. 2018;46(1):79–86. doi:10.1007/s00240-017-1019-5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lehman T, Bagley DH. Reverse lithotomy: modified prone position for simultaneous nephroscopic and ureteroscopic procedures in women. Urology. 1988;32(6):529–531. doi:10.1016/S0090-4295(98)90035-8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ray AA, Chung D-G, Honey RJD. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the prone and prone-flexed positions: anatomic considerations. J Endourol. 2009;23(10):1607–1614. doi:10.1089/end.2009.0294
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Papatsoris AG, Zaman F, Panah A, et al. Simultaneous anterograde and retrograde endourologic access: “the Barts technique”. J Endourol. 2008;22(12):2665–2666. doi:10.1089/end.2008.0283
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bach C, Goyal A, Kumar P, et al. The Barts “flank-free” modified supine position for percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Urol Int. 2012;89:365–368. doi:10.1159/000341430
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vicentini FC, Torricelli FCM, Mazzucchi E, et al. Modified complete supine percutaneous nephrolithotomy: solving some problems. J Endourol. 2013;27:845–849. doi:10.1089/end.2012.0725
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Biswas K, Gupta SK, Tak GR, Ganpule AP, Sabnis RB, Desai MR. Comparison of STONE score, Guy’s stone score and Clinical Research Office of the Endourological Society (CROES) score as predictive tools for percutaneous nephrolithotomy outcome: a prospective study. BJU Int. 2020;126(4):494–501. doi:10.1111/bju.15130
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang X, Xia L, Xu T, 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
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu L, Zheng S, Xu Y. Systematic review and meta analysis of percutaneous nephrolithotomy for patients in the supine versus prone position. J Endourol. 2010;24(12):1941. doi:10.1089/end.2010.0292
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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. PMID: 20628815. doi:10.1007/s11255-010-9801-0
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miçooğulları U, Kamacı D, Yıldızhan M, et al. Prone versus Barts “flank-free” modified supine percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a match-pair analysis. Turk J Med Sci. 2021;51(3):1373–1379. doi:10.3906/sag-2011-21.end.2006.0401
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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;7:307–310. doi:10.1089/end.1993.7.307
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hamamoto S, Yasui T, Okada A, et al. Developments in the technique of endoscopic combined intrarenal surgery in the prone split-leg position. Urology. 2014;84:565–570. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2014.04.020
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hamamoto S, Yasui T, Okada A, et al. Endoscopic combined intrarenal surgery for large calculi: simultaneous use of flexible ureteroscopy and mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy overcomes the disadvantageous of percutaneous nephrolithotomy monotherapy. J Endourol. 2014;28(1):28–33. PMID: 23987470. doi:10.1089/end.2013.0361
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Honey RJ, Wiesenthal JD, Ghiculete D, Pace S, Ray AA, Pace KT. Comparison of supracostal versus infracostal percutaneous nephrolithotomy using the novel prone-flexed patient position. J Endourol. 2011;25(6):947–954. doi:10.1089/end.2010.0705
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Singh P, Nayyar R, Bagga B, et al. Effects of horizontal versus vertical bolster alignment on anatomical orientation of kidney as applied to prone percutaneous nephrolithotomy. World J Urol. 2021;39(12):4471–4476. doi:10.1007/s00345-021-03728-z
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• He Z, Tang F, Lu Z, et al. Comparison of supracostal and infracostal access for percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Urol J. 2019;16(2):107–114. doi:10.22037/uj.v0i0.4727
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chow AK, Ogawa S, Seigel C, et al. Evaluation of perirenal anatomic landmarks on computed tomography to reduce the risk of thoracic complications during supracostal percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Endourol. 2021;35(5):589–595. doi:10.1089/end.2020.0551
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shoma AM, Eraky I, El-Kenawy MR, et al. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the supine position: technical aspects and functional outcome compared with the prone technique. Urology. 2002;60:388–392. doi:10.1016/S0090-4295(02)01738-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCahy P, Rzetelski-West K, Gleeson J. Complete stone clearance using a modified supine position: initial experience and comparison with prone percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Endourol. 2013;27(6):705–709. doi:10.1089/end.2012.0650
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karami H, Mohammadi R, Lotfi B. A study on comparative outcomes of percutaneous nephrolithotomy in prone, supine, and flank positions. World J Urol. 2013;31(5):1225–1230. doi:10.1007/s00345-012-0889-y
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tepeler A, Binbay M, Akman T, et al. Parenchymal thickness: does it have an impact on outcomes of percutaneous nephrolithotomy? Urol Int. 2013;90(4):405–410. doi:10.1159/000346336
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar