Comparison of supine and prone miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the treatment of lower pole, middle pole and renal pelvic stones: A matched pair analysis

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Erbin,Akif
Data de Publicação: 2019
Outros Autores: Ozdemir,Harun, Sahan,Murat, Savun,Metin, Cubuk,Alkan, Yazici,Ozgur, Akbulut,Mehmet Fatih, Sarilar,Omer
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: International Braz J Urol (Online)
Texto Completo: http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1677-55382019000500956
Resumo: ABSTRACT Purpose We aimed to compare the outcomes of supine and prone miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy (m-PNL) in the treatment of lower pole, middle pole and renal pelvic stones. Materials and Methods 54 patients who performed supine m-PNL between January 2017 and March 2018 and 498 patients who performed prone m-PNL between April 2015 and January 2018 were included in the study. Of the 498 patients, 108 matching 1: 2 in terms of age, gender, body mass index, American Association of Anesthesiology score, stone size, stone localization and hydronephrosis according to the supine m-PNL group were selected as prone m-PNL group. The patients with solitary kidney, upper pole stone, urinary system anomaly or skeletal malformation and pediatric patients (<18 years old) were excluded from the study. The success was defined as ‘complete stone clearance’ and was determined according to the 1st month computed tomography. Results The operation time and fluoroscopy time in supine m-PNL was significantly shorter than prone m-PNL group (58.1±45.9 vs. 80.1±40.0 min and 3.0±1.7 min vs. 4.9±4.5 min, p=0.025 and p=0.01, respectively). When post-operative complications were compared according to the modified Clavien-Dindo classification, overall and subgroup complication rates were comparable between groups. There was no significant difference between the groups in terms of the success rates (supine m-PNL; 72.2%, prone m-PNL; 71.3%, p=0.902). Conclusions Supine m-PNL procedure is more advantageous in terms of operation time and fluoroscopy time in the treatment of lower pole, middle pole and renal pelvic stones.
id SBU-1_dc85370357d5347e3882c4485029984d
oai_identifier_str oai:scielo:S1677-55382019000500956
network_acronym_str SBU-1
network_name_str International Braz J Urol (Online)
repository_id_str
spelling Comparison of supine and prone miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the treatment of lower pole, middle pole and renal pelvic stones: A matched pair analysisSupine PositionNephrolithotomy, PercutaneousPelvisABSTRACT Purpose We aimed to compare the outcomes of supine and prone miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy (m-PNL) in the treatment of lower pole, middle pole and renal pelvic stones. Materials and Methods 54 patients who performed supine m-PNL between January 2017 and March 2018 and 498 patients who performed prone m-PNL between April 2015 and January 2018 were included in the study. Of the 498 patients, 108 matching 1: 2 in terms of age, gender, body mass index, American Association of Anesthesiology score, stone size, stone localization and hydronephrosis according to the supine m-PNL group were selected as prone m-PNL group. The patients with solitary kidney, upper pole stone, urinary system anomaly or skeletal malformation and pediatric patients (<18 years old) were excluded from the study. The success was defined as ‘complete stone clearance’ and was determined according to the 1st month computed tomography. Results The operation time and fluoroscopy time in supine m-PNL was significantly shorter than prone m-PNL group (58.1±45.9 vs. 80.1±40.0 min and 3.0±1.7 min vs. 4.9±4.5 min, p=0.025 and p=0.01, respectively). When post-operative complications were compared according to the modified Clavien-Dindo classification, overall and subgroup complication rates were comparable between groups. There was no significant difference between the groups in terms of the success rates (supine m-PNL; 72.2%, prone m-PNL; 71.3%, p=0.902). Conclusions Supine m-PNL procedure is more advantageous in terms of operation time and fluoroscopy time in the treatment of lower pole, middle pole and renal pelvic stones.Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia2019-09-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiontext/htmlhttp://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1677-55382019000500956International braz j urol v.45 n.5 2019reponame:International Braz J Urol (Online)instname:Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia (SBU)instacron:SBU10.1590/s1677-5538.ibju.2019.0049info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessErbin,AkifOzdemir,HarunSahan,MuratSavun,MetinCubuk,AlkanYazici,OzgurAkbulut,Mehmet FatihSarilar,Omereng2019-11-05T00:00:00Zoai:scielo:S1677-55382019000500956Revistahttp://www.brazjurol.com.br/ONGhttps://old.scielo.br/oai/scielo-oai.php||brazjurol@brazjurol.com.br1677-61191677-5538opendoar:2019-11-05T00:00International Braz J Urol (Online) - Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia (SBU)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Comparison of supine and prone miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the treatment of lower pole, middle pole and renal pelvic stones: A matched pair analysis
title Comparison of supine and prone miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the treatment of lower pole, middle pole and renal pelvic stones: A matched pair analysis
spellingShingle Comparison of supine and prone miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the treatment of lower pole, middle pole and renal pelvic stones: A matched pair analysis
Erbin,Akif
Supine Position
Nephrolithotomy, Percutaneous
Pelvis
title_short Comparison of supine and prone miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the treatment of lower pole, middle pole and renal pelvic stones: A matched pair analysis
title_full Comparison of supine and prone miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the treatment of lower pole, middle pole and renal pelvic stones: A matched pair analysis
title_fullStr Comparison of supine and prone miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the treatment of lower pole, middle pole and renal pelvic stones: A matched pair analysis
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of supine and prone miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the treatment of lower pole, middle pole and renal pelvic stones: A matched pair analysis
title_sort Comparison of supine and prone miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the treatment of lower pole, middle pole and renal pelvic stones: A matched pair analysis
author Erbin,Akif
author_facet Erbin,Akif
Ozdemir,Harun
Sahan,Murat
Savun,Metin
Cubuk,Alkan
Yazici,Ozgur
Akbulut,Mehmet Fatih
Sarilar,Omer
author_role author
author2 Ozdemir,Harun
Sahan,Murat
Savun,Metin
Cubuk,Alkan
Yazici,Ozgur
Akbulut,Mehmet Fatih
Sarilar,Omer
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Erbin,Akif
Ozdemir,Harun
Sahan,Murat
Savun,Metin
Cubuk,Alkan
Yazici,Ozgur
Akbulut,Mehmet Fatih
Sarilar,Omer
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Supine Position
Nephrolithotomy, Percutaneous
Pelvis
topic Supine Position
Nephrolithotomy, Percutaneous
Pelvis
description ABSTRACT Purpose We aimed to compare the outcomes of supine and prone miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy (m-PNL) in the treatment of lower pole, middle pole and renal pelvic stones. Materials and Methods 54 patients who performed supine m-PNL between January 2017 and March 2018 and 498 patients who performed prone m-PNL between April 2015 and January 2018 were included in the study. Of the 498 patients, 108 matching 1: 2 in terms of age, gender, body mass index, American Association of Anesthesiology score, stone size, stone localization and hydronephrosis according to the supine m-PNL group were selected as prone m-PNL group. The patients with solitary kidney, upper pole stone, urinary system anomaly or skeletal malformation and pediatric patients (<18 years old) were excluded from the study. The success was defined as ‘complete stone clearance’ and was determined according to the 1st month computed tomography. Results The operation time and fluoroscopy time in supine m-PNL was significantly shorter than prone m-PNL group (58.1±45.9 vs. 80.1±40.0 min and 3.0±1.7 min vs. 4.9±4.5 min, p=0.025 and p=0.01, respectively). When post-operative complications were compared according to the modified Clavien-Dindo classification, overall and subgroup complication rates were comparable between groups. There was no significant difference between the groups in terms of the success rates (supine m-PNL; 72.2%, prone m-PNL; 71.3%, p=0.902). Conclusions Supine m-PNL procedure is more advantageous in terms of operation time and fluoroscopy time in the treatment of lower pole, middle pole and renal pelvic stones.
publishDate 2019
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2019-09-01
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1677-55382019000500956
url http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1677-55382019000500956
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv 10.1590/s1677-5538.ibju.2019.0049
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv text/html
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv International braz j urol v.45 n.5 2019
reponame:International Braz J Urol (Online)
instname:Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia (SBU)
instacron:SBU
instname_str Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia (SBU)
instacron_str SBU
institution SBU
reponame_str International Braz J Urol (Online)
collection International Braz J Urol (Online)
repository.name.fl_str_mv International Braz J Urol (Online) - Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia (SBU)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv ||brazjurol@brazjurol.com.br
_version_ 1750318077175660544