Modified supine (Giusti) percutaneous nephrolithotomy is noninferior to standard prone procedure for renal calculi: A single-center prospective randomized study

被引:0
|
作者
Ratkal, Jaideep [1 ]
Patel, Azharuddin Sharif [1 ]
Manjuprasad, G. B. [1 ]
Sampathkumar, R. N. [1 ]
Raykar, Raviraj [1 ]
机构
[1] Karnataka Inst Med Sci, Dept Urol & Renal Transplant, House 3,Block D, Hubli 580022, Karnataka, India
关键词
absolute stone-free rate; Clavien-Dindo grading; percutaneous nephrolithotomy; stone-free status; Visual Analog Scale; CLINICAL-RESEARCH OFFICE; POSITION; COMPLICATIONS; RISK;
D O I
10.1097/us9.0000000000000004
中图分类号
R5 [内科学]; R69 [泌尿科学(泌尿生殖系疾病)];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Purpose:The objective is to compare operative times, safety, effectiveness, postoperative pain, and need for analgesia for percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) in the modified supine (Giusti) versus the standard prone position. Materials and methods:A prospective randomized study of 82 patients was conducted from August 2021 to August 2022 at a tertiary medical teaching hospital. The cohort was divided into modified supine and prone PCNL groups (40 and 42 patients in supine and prone). The measured variables included age, sex, body mass index, stone size, comorbidities, procedure time, stone-free rate, pain severity/Visual Analog Scale, analgesia requirement, hospital stay, and complications (modified Clavien-Dindo grading). Results:The 2 groups were comparable in mean age, male-to-female ratio, stone size, residual calculi, and postoperative fever. The mean procedure time was 72.24 versus 90.12 minutes in favor of the modified supine PCNL (P < 0.001). The absolute stone-free rate showed no significant difference (82.5% versus 80.95%; P = 0.91) in both the groups. The severity of postoperative pain according to Visual Analog Scale was 2.9 (2-5) and 5.1 (3-7) in the modified supine and prone groups (P < 0.001). Patients undergoing supine PCNL needed analgesics fewer times and in lesser dosage than the prone PCNL group (1.27 versus 3.93; P < 0.001). Hospital stay was shorter in the supine group than the prone group (2.87 versus 4.40 days; P < 0.001). No differences in septic or bleeding complications were found. Conclusion:The modified supine PCNL is safe and noninferior to prone PCNL with shorter operative time, reduced postoperative pain, lesser need for analgesia, and shorter hospital stay, with the additional benefit of minimal physiological changes during anesthesia.
引用
收藏
页码:80 / 84
页数:5
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Effect of preoperative prophylactic antibiotic use on postoperative infection after percutaneous nephrolithotomy in patients with negative urine culture: a single-center randomized controlled trial
    Yang, Chadanfeng
    Wei, Hairong
    Zhan, Hui
    Luan, Ting
    Wan, Weiming
    Yuan, Shunhui
    Chen, Jian
    WORLD JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2023, 41 (12) : 3687 - 3693
  • [42] Clinical comparative study of standard channel percutaneous nephroscope combined with flexible ureteroscope and traditional standard channel combined with microchannel percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the treatment of multiple renal calculi without hydronephrosis
    Guo, Yuanshan
    Yang, Lijun
    Xu, Xin
    Li, Chao
    PAKISTAN JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SCIENCES, 2022, 38 (07) : 1844 - 1851
  • [43] Evaluation of stone volume distribution in renal collecting system as a predictor of stone-free rate after percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a retrospective single-center study
    Hasan Anıl Atalay
    Lutfi Canat
    Recep Bayraktarlı
    Ilter Alkan
    Osman Can
    Fatih Altunrende
    Urolithiasis, 2018, 46 : 303 - 309
  • [44] Super-mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) vs standard PCNL for the management of renal calculi of &lt;2 cm: a randomised controlled study
    Guddeti, Raja Sekhar
    Hegde, Padmaraj
    Chawla, Arun
    de la Rosette, Jean J. M. C. H.
    Pes, Maria Pilar Laguna
    Kapadia, Aseem
    BJU INTERNATIONAL, 2020, 126 (02) : 273 - 279
  • [45] Treatment of upper urinary calculi with Chinese minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a single-center experience with 12,482 consecutive patients over 20 years
    Guohua Zeng
    Zanlin Mai
    Zhijian Zhao
    Xun Li
    Wen Zhong
    Jian Yuan
    Kaijun Wu
    Wenqi Wu
    Urolithiasis, 2013, 41 : 225 - 229
  • [46] Prevention and treatment of septic shock following mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a single-center retrospective study of 834 cases
    Liu, Chunlai
    Zhang, Xiling
    Liu, Yili
    Wang, Ping
    WORLD JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2013, 31 (06) : 1593 - 1597
  • [47] Efficacy and safety of percutaneous nephrolithotomy with adult standard size instruments in children under 3 years of age: a 10 years single-center experience
    Nouralizadeh, Akbar
    Basiri, Abbas
    Ziaee, Seyed Amir Mohsen
    Tabibi, Ali
    Sharifiaghdas, Farzaneh
    Narouie, Behzad
    Sarhangnejad, Reza
    Valipour, Reza
    Sotoudeh, Mehdi
    Shemshaki, Hamidreza
    Ketabi, Nooshin
    Movahed, Saeed
    UROLOGIA JOURNAL, 2016, 83 (04) : 190 - 193
  • [48] Double-sheath vacuum suction versus vacuum-assisted sheath minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy for management of large renal stones: single-center experience
    Wu, Zhong-Hua
    Liu, Tong-Zu
    Wang, Xing-Huan
    Wang, Yong-Zhi
    Zheng, Hang
    Zhang, Yin-Gao
    WORLD JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2021, 39 (11) : 4255 - 4260
  • [49] RETRACTED: Comparison of Outcomes of Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy (PCNL) Between Adults and Pediatrics Population: A Single-Center Retrospective Study (Retracted Article)
    Umer, Muhammad Rizwan
    Basta, Marina
    Djossi, Sandrine Kakieu
    Tafti, Amin
    Khan, Musharaf
    Sarfraz, Maria Binte
    Khan, Sabeen Sharif
    John, Jobby
    Shamim, Khizer
    CUREUS JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SCIENCE, 2022, 14 (02)
  • [50] Renal pelvis urine Gram stain as a traditional, but new marker in predicting postoperative fever and stone culture positivity in percutaneous nephrolithotomy: an observational, prospective, non-randomized cohort study
    Karsiyakali, Nejdet
    Yucetas, Ugur
    Karatas, Aysel
    Karabay, Emre
    Okucu, Emrah
    Erkan, Erkan
    WORLD JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2021, 39 (06) : 2135 - 2146