Background: The oblique-supine position for percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) has advantages, but the position fixation methods are inadequate. This study aimed to analyze the PCNL outcomes using a patented self-made frame for oblique-supine position. Methods: This was a prospective study of patients scheduled to undergo PCNL at 2 hospitals in China between November 2009 and December 2016. The patients underwent PCNL in the oblique-supine position using the self-made position frame (n = 94). Operative time, stone clearance rate, intraoperative average systolic pressure, intraoperative average heart rate, intraoperative average airway pressure, intraoperative average intrapelvic pressure, and complications were observed. Results: The patients were 45.3 ± 19.7 years old and 71% were male. Stones were of the size 2.5 ± 1.1 cm. The operative time was 95.6 min and the stone clearance rate was 81.9%. Intraoperative systolic blood pressure was 15.13 ± 1.68 kPa. Intraoperative airway pressure was 15.5 ± 2.3 cm H2O. Postoperative fever was observed in 3.2% of the patients. None had organ injury. Postoperative stay was 4.8 ± 0.6 days. The nephrostomy tube was routinely removed on the 5th day after surgery and the patients were discharged on the following day. Conclusion: The self-made surgical position frame met the position requirements for the oblique-supine PCNL operation. This surgical position frame deserves clinical application and promotion.

Keywords:
Kidney calculi, Percutaneous nephrolithotomy, Surgical position, Oblique-supine position
1.
Hamamoto S, Yasui T, Okada A, Taguchi K, Kawai N, Ando R, 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 Jan; 28(1): 28–33.
2.
Ghani KR, Andonian S, Bultitude M, Desai M, Giusti G, Okhunov Z, et al. Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy: Update, Trends, and Future Directions.
Eur Urol
. 2016 Aug; 70(2): 382–96.
3.
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 Jun; 27(6): 705–9.
4.
Goodwin WE, Casey WC, Woolf W. Percutaneous trocar (needle) nephrostomy in hydronephrosis.
J Am Med Assoc
. 1955 Mar; 157(11): 891–4.
5.
Fernström I, Johansson B. Percutaneous pyelolithotomy. A new extraction technique.
Scand J Urol Nephrol
. 1976; 10(3): 257–9.
6.
Sanguedolce F, Breda A, Millan F, Brehmer M, Knoll T, Liatsikos E, et al. Lower pole stones: prone PCNL versus supine PCNL in the International Cooperation in Endourology (ICE) group experience.
World J Urol
. 2013 Dec; 31(6): 1575–80.
7.
Nour HH, Kamal AM, Ghobashi SE, Zayed AS, Rushdy MM, El-Baz AG, et al. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the supine position: safety and outcomes in a single-centre experience.
Arab J Urol
. 2013 Mar; 11(1): 62–7.
8.
Gamal W, Moursy E, Hussein M, Mmdouh A, Hammady A, Aldahshoury M. Supine pediatric percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL).
J Pediatr Urol
. 2015 Apr; 11(2): 78.e1–5.
9.
Tepeler A, Sehgal PD, Akman T, Unsal A, Ozyuvali E, Armagan A, et al. Factors affecting outcomes of percutaneous nephrolithotomy in horseshoe kidneys.
Urology
. 2014 Dec; 84(6): 1290–4.
10.
Otaño N, Jairath A, Mishra S, Ganpule A, Sabnis R, Desai M. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy in pelvic kidneys: is the ultrasound-guided puncture safe?
Urology
. 2015 Jan; 85(1): 55–8.
11.
Hoznek A, Rode J, Ouzaid I, Faraj B, Kimuli M, de la Taille A, et al. Modified supine percutaneous nephrolithotomy for large kidney and ureteral stones: technique and results.
Eur Urol
. 2012 Jan; 61(1): 164–70.
12.
Shoma AM, Eraky I, El-Kenawy MR, El-Kappany HA. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the supine position: technical aspects and functional outcome compared with the prone technique.
Urology
. 2002 Sep; 60(3): 388–92.
13.
Patel RM, Okhunov Z, Clayman RV, Landman J. Prone Versus Supine Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy: What Is Your Position?
Curr Urol Rep
. 2017 Apr; 18(4): 26.
14.
Falahatkar S, Mokhtari G, Teimoori M. An Update on Supine Versus Prone Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy: A Meta-analysis.
Urol J
. 2016 Oct; 13(5): 2814–22.
15.
Yazici CM, Kayhan A, Dogan C. Supine or prone percutaneous nephrolithotomy: do anatomical changes make it worse?
J Endourol
. 2014 Jan; 28(1): 10–6.
16.
Valdivia Uría JG, Valle Gerhold J, López López JA, Villarroya Rodriguez S, Ambroj Navarro C, Ramirez Fabián M, et al. Technique and complications of percutaneous nephroscopy: experience with 557 patients in the supine position.
J Urol
. 1998 Dec; 160(6 Pt 1): 1975–8.
17.
Wang Y, Wang Y, Yao Y, Xu N, Zhang H, Chen Q, et al. Prone versus modified supine position in percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a prospective randomized study.
Int J Med Sci
. 2013 Aug; 10(11): 1518–23.
18.
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(3): 365–8.
19.
Karami H, Mohammadi R, Lotfi B. A study on comparative outcomes of percutaneous nephrolithotomy in prone, supine, and flank positions.
World J Urol
. 2013 Oct; 31(5): 1225–30.
20.
Astroza G, Lipkin M, Neisius A, Preminger G, De Sio M, Sodha H, et al.; CROES PNL Study Group. 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 Dec; 82(6): 1240–4.
21.
Al-Dessoukey AA, Moussa AS, Abdelbary AM, Zayed A, Abdallah R, Elderwy AA, et al. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the oblique supine lithotomy position and prone position: a comparative study.
J Endourol
. 2014 Sep; 28(9): 1058–63.
22.
Arrabal-Martin M, Arrabal-Polo MA, Lopez-Leon V, Merino-Salas S, Palao-Yago F, Cámara-Ortega M, et al. The oblique supine decubitus position: technical description and comparison of results with the prone decubitus and dorsal supine decubitus positions.
Urol Res
. 2012 Oct; 40(5): 587–92.
23.
Assimos D, Krambeck A, Miller NL, Monga M, Murad MH, Nelson CP, et al. Surgical Management of Stones: American Urological Association/Endourological Society Guideline, PART II.
J Urol
. 2016 Oct; 196(4): 1161–9.
24.
Ramakumar S, Segura JW. Renal calculi. Percutaneous management.
Urol Clin North Am
. 2000 Nov; 27(4): 617–22.
25.
Sternberg KM, Jacobs BL, King BJ, Wachterman JB, Shahrour K, Theisen KM, et al. The prone ureteroscopic technique for managing large stone burdens.
Can J Urol
. 2015 Apr; 22(2): 7758–62.
26.
Hamamoto S, Yasui T, Okada A, Takeuchi M, Taguchi K, Shibamoto Y, et al. Developments in the technique of endoscopic combined intrarenal surgery in the prone split-leg position.
Urology
. 2014 Sep; 84(3): 565–70.
27.
Scoffone CM, Hoznek A, Cracco CM, editors.
Supine Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy and ECIRS - The New Way of Interpreting PNL
. New York: Springer; 2014.
28.
Vicentini FC, Torricelli FC, Mazzucchi E, Hisano M, Murta CB, Danilovic A, et al. Modified complete supine percutaneous nephrolithotomy: solving some problems.
J Endourol
. 2013 Jul; 27(7): 845–9.
29.
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 Feb; 195(2): 377–82.
30.
Mazzucchi E, Vicentini FC, Marchini GS, Danilovic A, Brito AH, Srougi M. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy in obese patients: comparison between the prone and total supine position.
J Endourol
. 2012 Nov; 26(11): 1437–42.
© 2019 S. Karger AG, Basel
2019
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.