Percutaneous nephrolithotripsy in Galdakao-modified supine position

Česká verzia

Authors: Milan Král ¹; Barbora Látalová ¹; Michal Grepl ¹; František Hruška ¹; Filip Čtvrtlík ²; Zbyněk Tüdös ²; Pavel Rajmon ¹; Vladimír Študent ¹
Authors place of work: Urologická klinika LF UP a FN, Olomouc ¹; Radiologická klinika LF UP a FN, Olomouc ²
Published in the journal: Ces Urol 2014; 18(2): 128-133
Category: Original article

Summary

Aim:
To present our personal experience with Galdakao modified supine position in percutaneous nephrolithotripsy and in combined antegrade and retrograde endoscopic procedures.

Methods:
Between May 2013 to January 2014 we performed 20 percutaneous surgeries in modified supine position (percutaneous nephrostomy due to renal obstruction in 6 cases and percutaneous nephrolithotomy in 14 cases). One case was performed using the combined intrarenal technique.

Results:
Average surgery time was 113 minutes and stone size was 310 mm². In 8 cases there were multiple or staghorn stones. Average hospital stay following surgery was 4 days. There were no complications higher than Grade I according Clavien-Dindo classification. Auxiliary procedures were necessary in 4 cases. The three-months stone-free rate was 92.86%.

Conclusion:
According to our experience, modified supine position has several advantages over prone, both for the patient and surgical team, with an acceptable complication rate. Practical experience with this position is even more essential in combined endoscopic intrarenal procedures for stones.

Key words:
urolithiasis, percutaneous nephrolithotripsy, modified supine position, ureteroscopy, stone-free rate.

Zdroje

1. Valdivia Uría JG, Valle Gerhold J, López López JA, et al. Technique and complications of percutaneous nephroscopy: experience with 557 patients in the supine position. J Urol 1998; 160: 1975–1978.

2. Ibarluzea G, Scoffone CM, Cracco CM, et al. Supine Valdivia and modiﬁed lithotomy position for simultaneous anterograde and retrograde endourological access. BJU Int 2007; 100: 233–236.

3. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of Surgical Complications, a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 2004; 240(2): 205–213.

4. http://www.uroweb.org/gls/pdf/21_Urolithiasis_LRV4.pdf

5. Matlaga BR, Jansen JP, Meckley LM, Byrne TW, Lingeman JE. Treatment of ureteral and renal stones: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials. J Urol 2012; 188(1): 130–137.

6. Fillo J, Mardiak J, Maľa M, Szeiff Š, Červenakov L, Kopečný M. ESWL v liečbe urolitiázy: 2ročné skúsenosti s prístrojom Piezolith 3000. Ces Urol 2004; 8(3): 42–45.

7. Raman JD, Bagrodia A, Gupta A et. al. Natural history of residual fragments following percutaneous nephrostolithotomy. J Urol 2009; 181(3): 1163–1168.

8. Baard J, Kamphuis GM, Westendarp M, de la Rosette JJ. How well tolerated is supine percutaneous nephrolithotomy? Curr Opin Urol 2014; 24(2): 184–188.

9. Valdivia JG, Scarpa RM, Duvdevani M, et al.; Croes PCNL Study Group. Supine Versus Prone Position During Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy. A report from Clinical Research Office of the Endourological Society Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy Global Study. J Endourol 2011; 25(10): 1619–1625.

10. Atkinson CJ, Turney BW, Noble JG, Reynard JMSM. Supine vs prone percutaneous nephrolithotomy: an anaesthetist’s view. BJU Int 2011; 108: 306–308.

11. de la Rosette J, Assimos D, Desai M, et al.; CROES PCNL Study Group. The Clinical Research Office of the Endourological Society Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy Global Study: indications, complications, and outcomes in 5803 patients. J Endourol 2011; 25(1): 11–7.

12. Král M, Hradil D, Brázda B, et al. Řešení urolitiázy v transplantované ledvině perkutánní nefrolitotrypsí. Ces Urol 2012; 16(3): 180–183.