Which Position for Novice Surgeons? Effect of Supine and Prone Positions on Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy Learning Curve
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
Statistical Analysis
3. Results
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Fernström, I.; Johansson, B. Percutaneous pyelolithotomy. A new extraction technique. Scand. J. Urol. Nephrol. 1976, 10, 257–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- EAU. EAU Guidelines; Edn. presented at the EAU Annual Congress Paris 2024; EAU Guidelines Office: Arnhem, The Netherlands, 2024; ISBN 978-94-92671-23-3. [Google Scholar]
- Valdivia Uría, J.G.; Lachares Santamaría, E.; Villarroya Rodríguez, S.; Taberner Llop, J.; Abril Baquero, G.; Aranda Lassa, J.M. Percutaneous nephrolithectomy: Simplified technic (preliminary report). Arch. Esp. Urol. 1987, 40, 177–180. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Siev, M.; Motamedinia, P.; Leavitt, D.; Fakhoury, M.; Barcohana, K.; Hoenig, D.; Smith, A.D.; Okeke, Z. Does Peak Inspiratory Pressure Increase in the Prone Position? An Analysis Related to Body Mass Index. J. Urol. 2015, 194, 1302–1306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Patel, R.M.; Okhunov, Z.; Clayman, R.V.; Landman, J. Prone Versus Supine Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy: What Is Your Position? Curr. Urol. Rep. 2017, 18, 26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Walick, K.S.; Kragh, J.E., Jr.; Ward, J.A.; Crawford, J.J. Changes in intraocular pressure due to surgical positioning: Studying potential risk for postoperative vision loss. Spine 2007, 32, 2591–2595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mak, D.K.; Smith, Y.; Buchholz, N.; El-Husseiny, T. What is better in percutaneous nephrolithotomy—Prone or supine? A systematic review. Arab. J. Urol. 2016, 14, 101–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Cracco, C.M.; Scoffone, C.M. ECIRS (Endoscopic Combined Intrarenal Surgery) in the Galdakao-modified supine Valdivia position: A new life for percutaneous surgery? World J. Urol. 2011, 29, 821–827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Grasso, M.; Nord, R.; Bagley, D.H. Prone split leg and flank roll positioning: Simultaneous antegrade and retrograde access to the upper urinary tract. J. Endourol. 1993, 7, 307–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Choudhury, S.; Talukdar, P.; Mandal, T.K.; Majhi, T.K. Supine versus prone PCNL in lower calyceal stone: Comparative study in a tertiary care center. Urol. J. 2021, 88, 148–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Seleem, M.M.; Desoky, E.; Abdelwahab, K.; Bendary, L.; Elderey, M.S.; Eliwa, A. Flank-free modified supine vs prone ultra-mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy in treatment of medium-sized renal pelvic stone: A randomized clinical trial. J. Endourol. 2022, 36, 1149–1154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Falahatkar, S.; Mokhtari, G.; Teimoori, M. An Update on Supine Versus Prone Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy: A Meta-analysis. Urol. J. 2016, 13, 2814–2822. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Keller, E.X.; Coninck, V.D.E.; Proietti, S.; Talso, M.; Emiliani, E.; Ploumidis, A.; Mantica, G.; Somani, B.; Traxer, O.; Scarpa, R.M.; et al. Prone versus supine percutaneous nephrolithotomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of current literature. Minerva Urol. Nephrol. 2021, 73, 50–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Yuan, D.; Liu, Y.; Rao, H.; Cheng, T.; Sun, Z.; Wang, Y.; Liu, J.; Chen, W.; Zhong, W.; Zhu, J. Supine Versus Prone Position in Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy for Kidney Calculi: A Meta-Analysis. J. Endourol. 2016, 30, 754–763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Birowo, P.; Tendi, W.; Widyahening, I.S.; Rasyid, N.; Atmoko, W. Supine versus prone position in percutaneous nephrolithotomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. F1000Research 2020, 9, 231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sahan, M.; Sarilar, O.; Savun, M.; Caglar, U.; Erbin, A.; Ozgor, F. Adopting for Supine Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy: Analyzing the Learning Curve of Tertiary Academic Center Urology Team. Urology 2020, 140, 22–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Chapagain, A.; Basnet, R.B.; Shah, C.; Shah, A.K.; Shrestha, P.M.; Shrestha, A. Comparative Study of Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy in Supine and Prone Positions. J. Nepal Health Res. Counc. 2021, 19, 154–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mulay, A.; Mane, D.; Mhaske, S.; Shah, A.S.; Krishnappa, D.; Sabale, V. Supine versus prone percutaneous nephrolithotomy for renal calculi: Our experience. Curr. Urol. 2022, 16, 25–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Melo, P.A.D.S.; Vicentini, F.C.; Perrella, R.; Murta, C.B.; Claro, J.F.D.A. Comparative study of percutaneous nephrolithotomy performed in the traditional prone position and in three different supine positions. Int. Braz. J. Urol. 2019, 45, 108–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Allen, D.; O’Brien, T.; Tiptaft, R.; Glass, J. Defining the learning curve for percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J. Endourol. 2005, 19, 279–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tanriverdi, O.; Boylu, U.; Kendirci, M.; Kadihasanoglu, M.; Horasanli, K.; Miroglu, C. The learning curve in the training of percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Eur. Urol. 2007, 52, 206–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ziaee, S.A.; Sichani, M.M.; Kashi, A.H.; Samzadeh, M. Evaluation of the learning curve for percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Urol. J. 2010, 7, 226–231. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Zampini, A.M.; Bamberger, J.N.; Gupta, K.; Gallante, B.; Atallah, W.M.; Gupta, M. Factors Affecting Patient Radiation Exposure During Prone and Supine Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy. J. Endourol. 2021, 35, 1448–1453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- 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, 1225–1230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Widyokirono, D.R.; Kloping, Y.P.; Hidayatullah, F.; Rahman, Z.A.; Ng, A.C.; Hakim, L. Endoscopic combined intrarenal surgery vs percutaneous nephrolithotomy for large and complex renal stone: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Endourol. 2022, 36, 865–876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Characteristics | Supine PCNL (n = 50) | Prone PCNL (n = 50) | p |
---|---|---|---|
Age (years) (mean ± SD) | 55.5 ± 15.44 | 49 ± 13.08 | 0.275 |
Sex | 0.065 | ||
Male n (%) | 35 (70%) | 26 (52%) | |
Female n (%) | 15 (30%) | 24 (48%) | |
BMI (kg/m2) (median) (min-max) | 26.4 (19–39) | 26.1 (18–40) | 0.997 |
Side (right/left) | 0.841 | ||
Right n (%) | 27 (54%) | 28 (56%) | |
Left n (%) | 23 (46%) | 22 (44%) | |
Stone location | 0.959 | ||
Pelvis n (%) | 28 (56%) | 24 (48%) | |
Lower calyx n (%) | 15 (30%) | 12 (24%) | |
Middle calyx n (%) | 8 (16%) | 13 (26%) | |
Upper calyx n (%) | 12 (24%) | 8 (16%) | |
Ureteropelvic junction n (%) | 5 (10%) | 6 (12%) | |
Staghorn n (%) | 9 (18%) | 8 (16%) | |
Stone size (mm) (median) (min-max) | 20 (8–46) | 24.5 (10–49) | 0.133 |
Hounsfield unit (median) (min-max) | 1546 (550–2800) | 1113 (502–2400) | <0.001 |
Stone-free rate n (%) | 40 (80%) | 32 (64%) | 0.075 |
ES replacement n (%) | 7 (14%) | 9 (18%) | 0.585 |
Operation time (min) (mean ± STD) | 94.6 ± 9.8 | 129.9 ± 20.3 | <0.001 |
Fluoroscopy time (s) (median) (min-max) | 31 (10–89) | 48 (23–156) | 0.001 |
Supine PCNL | ||||||
Groups | 1–10 | 11–20 | 21–30 | 31–40 | 41–50 | p |
Stone-free rate n (%) | 6 (60%) | 7 (70%) | 9 (90%) | 9 (90%) | 9 (90%) | 0.464 |
Operation time (min) (mean ± STD) | 105 ± 11.3 | 91 ± 10.7 | 93 ± 7.8 | 92.5 ± 7.5 | 91.5 ± 2.4 | 0.037 |
Fluoroscopy time (sec) (median) (min-max) | 48.5 (24–89) | 32.5 (21–89) | 34.5 (10–85) | 24.5 (11–33) | 22.5 (15–42) | 0.005 |
ES replacement n (%) | 3 (30%) | 1 (10%) | 1 (10%) | 1 (10%) | 1 (10%) | 0.643 |
Hb drop (gr/dL) (median) (min-max) | 1.45 (0.2–5.5) | 1.25 (−0.4–3.7) | 0.95 (−0.6–2.2) | 1.2 (−0.1–3.2) | 1.4 (0.6–2.2) | 0.355 |
Stone size (mm) (median) (min-max) | 24.5 (15–43) | 20 (11–29) | 15.5 (12–35) | 21.5 (8–45) | 22.5 (12–46) | 0.571 |
Prone PCNL | ||||||
Groups | 1–10 | 11–20 | 21–30 | 31–40 | 41–50 | p |
Stone-free rate n (%) | 5 (50%) | 5 (50%) | 6 (60%) | 8 (80%) | 8 (80%) | 0.451 |
Operation time (min) (mean, SD) (min-max) | 145.5 ± 5.5 (135–150) | 128.5 ± 22 (90–150) | 124.5 ± 20.2 (90–145) | 127.5 ± 22.2 (80–160) | 123.5 ± 21.6 (90–150) | 0.002 |
Fluoroscopy time (sec) (median) (min-max) | 54.5 (23–156) | 57 (38–92) | 44 (25–77) | 32.5 (23–76) | 36.5 (27–77) | 0.227 |
ES replacement n (%) | 3 (30%) | 2 (20%) | 2 (20%) | 1 (10%) | 1 (10%) | 0.776 |
Hb drop (gr/dL) (median) (min-max) | 1.2 (−0.5–2.2) | 1.15 (−0.1–3.5) | 1.7 (0.7–2.2) | 1 (−0.3–3.4) | 1.25 (−0.2–2.6) | 0.821 |
Stone size (mm) (median) (min-max) | 27 (19–38) | 31 (17–42) | 25 (10–49) | 24.5 (13–40) | 17 (13–30) | 0.03 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Bulut, E.C.; Aydın, U.; Coşkun, Ç.; Çetin, S.; Ünsal, A.; Polat, F.; Küpeli, B. Which Position for Novice Surgeons? Effect of Supine and Prone Positions on Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy Learning Curve. Medicina 2024, 60, 1292. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina60081292
Bulut EC, Aydın U, Coşkun Ç, Çetin S, Ünsal A, Polat F, Küpeli B. Which Position for Novice Surgeons? Effect of Supine and Prone Positions on Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy Learning Curve. Medicina. 2024; 60(8):1292. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina60081292
Chicago/Turabian StyleBulut, Ender Cem, Uğur Aydın, Çağrı Coşkun, Serhat Çetin, Ali Ünsal, Fazlı Polat, and Bora Küpeli. 2024. "Which Position for Novice Surgeons? Effect of Supine and Prone Positions on Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy Learning Curve" Medicina 60, no. 8: 1292. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina60081292