Supine Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy (PNCL)-2 Years’ Experience in a Tertiary Care Hospital: Experience of Supine Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy

Shoukat Ali; Rashid Ali; Maqbool Jabbar; Hayat Muhammad Karkaro; Ahmad Ullah

doi:10.54393/pjhs.v6i4.2597

Authors

Shoukat Ali Balochistan Institute of Nephrology Urology, Quetta, Pakistan
Rashid Ali Balochistan Institute of Nephrology Urology, Quetta, Pakistan
Maqbool Jabbar Balochistan Institute of Nephrology Urology, Quetta, Pakistan
Hayat Muhammad Karkaro Balochistan Institute of Nephrology Urology, Quetta, Pakistan
Ahmad Ullah Balochistan Institute of Nephrology Urology, Quetta, Pakistan

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.54393/pjhs.v6i4.2597

Keywords:

Renal Stones, Urolithiasis Surgery, Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy Outcomes, Minimally Invasive Urology

Abstract

Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy (PCNL) has basically substituted open surgery for managing large, complex renal stones. Supine PCNL provides multiple benefits compared to the prone position, yet its adoption in Pakistan remains limited. Objective: To evaluate the experience and outcomes of supine PCNL at a tertiary care hospital in Pakistan. Methods: This retrospective study included 113 patients (aged 3–74 years) who underwent PCNL at the Urology Unit of Baluchistan Institute of Nephro-Urology Quetta (BINUQ) between June 2021 and June 2023. Data on demographics, operative position (supine/prone), Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy (ESWL) sessions, and postoperative hospital stay were retrieved from medical records. Descriptive statistics were analyzed using SPSS version 26. Results: Age of the patients was 32.68 ± 15.59 years. Among 113 patients, 63 (55.8%) were male, and 50 (44.2%) were female. Age distribution included 28 (24.8%) patients aged 3–20 years, 54 (47.8%) aged 21–40 years, 24 (21.2%) aged 41–60 years, and 7 (6.2%) aged 61–74 years. Right-sided PCNL was performed in 64 (56.6%) cases, while 49 (43.4%) involved the left kidney. A total of 82 (72.6%) patients experienced (Supine) PCNL, and 18 (15.9%) (Prone). The mean number of ESWL sessions was 0.24± 0.52, and the average postoperative hospital stay was 2.99 ± 1.85 days. Conclusions: Supine PCNL demonstrated favorable outcomes, including shorter hospital stays, effective stone removal, and reduced postoperative recovery time. This study supported the broader adoption of supine PCNL in clinical practice.

References

Ibrahim MK, Daniswara N, Santosa A, Soedarso MA, Nugroho EA, Wibisono DS et al. The Effectiveness and Safety of Supine Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy in Single-Center Tertiary Hospital. Open Access Macedonian Journal of Medical Sciences. 2023 Jan; 11(B): 326-9. doi: 10.3889/oamjms.2023.11367.

Grosso AA, Sessa F, Campi R, Viola L, Polverino P, Crisci A et al. Intraoperative and postoperative surgical complications after ureteroscopy, retrograde intrarenal surgery, and percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a systematic review. Minerva Urology and Nephrology. 2021 Apr; 73(3): 309-32. doi: 10.23736/S2724-6051.21.04294-4.

Gajewski J and Cox A. Imaging Techniques in the Evaluation of the Neurogenic Lower Urinary Tract Dysfunction (NLUTD). InHandbook of Neurourology: Theory and Practice 2023 Feb 10 (pp. 1-14). Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore. 2023 Feb. doi: 10.1007/978-981-16-7939-1_20-1.

Bulut EC, Elmas B, Küpeli B. Evaluation of the Impact of Body Mass Index on the Outcomes of Supine Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy. The New Journal of Urology. 2024 Oct; 19(3): 121-8. doi: 10.33719/nju1534944.

Taşkıran M and Dogan K. Comparison of Success and Complication Rates of Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy Operations According to Kidney Stone Localization. Endoüroloji Bülteni. 2023 Sep; 15(3): 115-24. doi: 10.54233/endouroloji.20231503-1346626.

Falahatkar S, Allahkhah A, Soltanipour S. Supine percutaneous nephrolithotomy: pro. Urology Journal. 2011 Nov; 8(4): 257-64.

Lezrek M and Durutovic O. PCNL in developing countries. InPercutaneous Renal Surgery 2023 Nov; 401-413. doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-40542-6_27.

Zanaty F, Mousa A, Elgharabawy M, Elshazly M, Sultan S. A prospective, randomized comparison of standard prone position versus flank-free modified supine position in percutaneous nephrolithotomy: A single-center initial experience. Urology Annals. 2022 Apr; 14(2): 172-6. doi: 10.4103/UA.UA_31_20.

Sabnis R, Desai MR, Singh A. Supine percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Journal of Endourology. 2022 Sep; 36(S2): S-35. doi: 10.1089/end.2022.029.

Fayad MK, Fahmy O, Abulazayem KM, Salama NM. Retrograde intrarenal surgery versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy for treatment of renal pelvic stone more than 2 centimeters: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Urolithiasis. 2022 Feb; 50(1): 113-7. doi: 10.1007/s00240-021-01289-9.

Bhatty TA, Nathaniel E, Noureen S, Iqbal N. Supine Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy: Preliminary experience in a single hospital. Pakistan Journal of Medical Sciences. 2024 Sep; 40(8): 1709. doi: 10.12669/pjms.40.8.9188.

Wang F, Hong Y, Yang Z, Ye L. Comparison of retrograde intrarenal surgery and standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy for management of stones at ureteropelvic junction with high-grade hydronephrosis. Scientific Reports. 2021 Jul; 11(1): 14050. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-93551-8.

Proietti S, Rodríguez-Socarrás ME, Eisner B, De Coninck V, Sofer M, Saitta G et al. Supine percutaneous nephrolithotomy: tips and tricks. Translational Andrology and Urology. 2019 Sep; 8(Suppl 4): S381. doi: 10.21037/tau.2019.07.09.

Giusti G, Basulto-Martínez M, Proietti S, Saitta G, Yeow Y. Access in supine position. InMinimally Invasive Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy. 2022 Mar: 157-164. doi: 10.1007/978-981-16-6001-6_12.

Elhefnawy MM, Zayed AM, Ali MM, Malek MM. Outcomes of modified Supine Supra-costal Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy: A Prospective Cohort Study. Zagazig University Medical Journal. 2024 Oct; 30(7): 3218-32. doi: 10.21608/zumj.2024.314396.3532.

Sahan M, Yarimoglu S, Sarilar O, Caglar U, Ozgor F. Supine versus Prone Miniaturised Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy in Elderly Patients. Journal of the College of Physicians and Surgeons Pakistan. 2022 Mar; 32(3): 340-6. doi: 10.29271/jcpsp.2022.03.340.

Jamil MN, ul Haq F, ul Islam E, Shaheen R, Farooq U. Comparison between supine positions versus prone position in percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a single centered analysis of 623 cases. Journal of Ayub Medical College Abbottabad. 2022 Oct; 34(4 (SUPPL 1)): 1003-7. doi: 10.55519/JAMC-04-S4-11259.

Açıkgöz A, Kara B, Önem K, Çetinkaya M. Postoperative pulmonary complications after percutaneous nephrolithotomy under spinal anesthesia. Urology Journal. 2023; 20(01): 1-6. doi: 10.22037/uj.v19i.7089.

Kominsky HD, Lieb SF, Knoll T, Pearle MS. Complications of percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Percutaneous Renal Surgery. 2023 Nov: 415-39. doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-40542-6_28.

Liatsikos E, Tsaturyan A, Kallidonis P. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy for stone disease: which position? Prone position!. European Urology Open Science. 2022 Jan; 35: 6-8.

Morsy SM, Abdelaziz IN, Rammah AM, Labana MA, Hussein HA. A prospective, observational study to assess the feasibility and safety of supine percutaneous nephrolithotomy under regional anesthesia for obese patients with a body mass index≥ 30. Indian Journal of Urology. 2022 Oct; 38(4): 302-6. doi: 10.4103/iju.iju_186_22.

Srinivasa VY, Dev KP, Kumari A. Safety and efficacy of general anesthesia versus spinal anesthesia in percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Asian Journal of Medical Sciences. 2024 Mar; 15(3): 63-8.

Bürlukkara S, Kabalak AA, Ateş A, Baran Ö, Aykaç A, Özok HU. Comparative analysis of combined spinal-epidural anesthesia and general anesthesia in percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a prospective study on surgical team and operating room personnel satisfaction. World Journal of Urology. 2024 Apr; 42(1): 262. doi: 10.1007/s00345-024-04977-4.

Natchagande G, Agounkpe MM, Loko DM, Hodonou F, Yevi DM, Sossa J et al. Role of surgery for upper urinary tract stones in low-income countries: semi-rigid ureteroscopy and percutaneous nephrolithotomy in Benin. African Urology. 2025 Mar; 5(1): 10-4.