Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Prone Versus Supine Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy: What Is Your Position?

  • Endourology (P Mucksavage, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Urology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of Review

Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) is the gold standard surgical procedure for treating large, complex renal stones. Due to its challenging nature, PCNL has undergone many modifications in surgical technique, instruments, and also in patient positioning. Since the first inception of PCNL, prone position has been traditionally used. However, alternative positions have been proposed and assessed over the years. This is a comprehensive review on the latest developments related to positioning in the practice of PCNL.

Recent Findings

The prone position and its modifications are the most widely used positions for PCNL, but with the introduction of various supine positions, the optimal position has been up for debate. Recent meta-analysis has shown a superior stone-free rate in the prone position and comparable complication rates to the supine position. The advantage of ease of access to the urethra for simultaneous retrograde techniques in the supine position is also possible with modifications in the prone position such as the split-leg technique.

Summary

Modern-day PCNL has transformed from an operation traditionally undertaken in the prone position to a procedure in which a prone or supine position may be employed; however, published data have not shown significant superiority of either approach.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

CROES:

Clinical Research Office of the Endourological Society

PCNL:

Percutaneous nephrolithotomy

RCT:

Randomized controlled trial

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. •• Assimos D, Krambeck A, Miller NL, Monga M, Murad MH, Nelson CP, et al. Surgical management of stones: American Urological Association/Endourological Society Guideline, PART II. J Urol. 2016;196(4):1161–9. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2016.05.091. Recent American Urological Association guidline on the surgical management of kidney stones.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Fernstrom I, Johansson B. Percutaneous pyelolithotomy. A new extraction technique. Scand J Urol Nephrol. 1976;10(3):257–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Valdivia Uria JG, Lachares Santamaria E, Villarroya Rodriguez S, Taberner Llop J, Abril Baquero G, Aranda Lassa JM. Percutaneous nephrolithectomy: simplified technic (preliminary report). Arch Esp Urol. 1987;40(3):177–80.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. • Al-Dessoukey AA, Moussa AS, Abdelbary AM, Zayed A, Abdallah R, Elderwy AA, et al. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the oblique supine lithotomy position and prone position: a comparative study. J Endourol. 2014;28(9):1058–63. doi:10.1089/end.2014.0078. Prospective randomized study comparing supine versus prone PCNL.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Arrabal-Martin M, Arrabal-Polo MA, Lopez-Leon V, Merino-Salas S, Palao-Yago F, Camara-Ortega M, et al. The oblique supine decubitus position: technical description and comparison of results with the prone decubitus and dorsal supine decubitus positions. Urol Res. 2012;40(5):587–92. doi:10.1007/s00240-012-0471-5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. • Astroza G, Lipkin M, Neisius A, Preminger G, De Sio M, Sodha H, et al. Effect of supine vs prone position on outcomes of percutaneous nephrolithotomy in staghorn calculi: results from the Clinical Research Office of the Endourology Society Study. Urology. 2013;82(6):1240–4. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2013.06.068. Evaluaiton of the data from the CROES database on the effect of body position during PCNL.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Basiri A, Mirjalili MA, Kardoust Parizi M, Moosa Nejad NA. Supplementary X-ray for ultrasound-guided percutaneous nephrolithotomy in supine position versus standard technique: a randomized controlled trial. Urol Int. 2013;90(4):399–404. doi:10.1159/000345796.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. De Sio M, Autorino R, Quarto G, Calabro F, Damiano R, Giugliano F, et al. Modified supine versus prone position in percutaneous nephrolithotomy for renal stones treatable with a single percutaneous access: a prospective randomized trial. Eur Urol. 2008;54(1):196–202. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2008.01.067.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Falahatkar S, Moghaddam AA, Salehi M, Nikpour S, Esmaili F, Khaki N. Complete supine percutaneous nephrolithotripsy comparison with the prone standard technique. J Endourol. 2008;22(11):2513–7. doi:10.1089/end.2008.0463.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 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(5):1225–30. doi:10.1007/s00345-012-0889-y.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Mazzucchi E, Vicentini FC, Marchini GS, Danilovic A, Brito AH, Srougi M. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy in obese patients: comparison between the prone and total supine position. J Endourol. 2012;26(11):1437–42. doi:10.1089/end.2012.0257. Body mass index considerations when considering prone versus supine PCNL.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. McCahy P, Rzetelski-West K, Gleeson J. Complete stone clearance using a modified supine position: initial experience and comparison with prone percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Endourol. 2013;27(6):705–9. doi:10.1089/end.2012.0650.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Sanguedolce F, Breda A, Millan F, Brehmer M, Knoll T, Liatsikos E, et al. Lower pole stones: prone PCNL versus supine PCNL in the International Cooperation in Endourology (ICE) group experience. World J Urol. 2013;31(6):1575–80. doi:10.1007/s00345-012-0941-y.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Shoma AM, Eraky I, El-Kenawy MR, El-Kappany HA. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the supine position: technical aspects and functional outcome compared with the prone technique. Urology. 2002;60(3):388–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Sofer M, Giusti G, Proietti S, Mintz I, Kabha M, Matzkin H, et al. Upper calyx approachability through a lower calyx access for prone versus supine percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Urol. 2016;195(2):377–82. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2015.07.101.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Walick KS, Kragh Jr JE, Ward JA, Crawford JJ. Changes in intraocular pressure due to surgical positioning: studying potential risk for postoperative vision loss. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007;32(23):2591–5. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e318158cc23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Wang Y, Hou Y, Jiang F, Wang Y, Wang C. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy for staghorn stones in patients with solitary kidney in prone position or in completely supine position: a single-center experience. Int Braz J Urol. 2012;38(6):788–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Wang Y, Wang Y, Yao Y, Xu N, Zhang H, Chen Q, et al. Prone versus modified supine position in percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a prospective randomized study. Int J Med Sci. 2013;10(11):1518–23. doi:10.7150/ijms.6305.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Zhan HL, Li ZC, Zhou XF, Yang F, Huang JF, Lu MH. Supine lithotomy versus prone position in minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy for upper urinary tract calculi. Urol Int. 2013;91(3):320–5. doi:10.1159/000351337.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Valdivia JG, Scarpa RM, Duvdevani M, Gross AJ, Nadler RB, Nutahara K, et al. Supine versus prone position during percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a report from the clinical research office of the endourological society percutaneous nephrolithotomy global study. J Endourol. 2011;25(10):1619–25. doi:10.1089/end.2011.0110.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Schulman CC, SpringerLink (Online service). Advances in diagnostic urology. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg: Berlin, Heidelberg; 1981.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  22. Goodwin WE, Casey WC, Woolf W. Percutaneous trocar (needle) nephrostomy in hydronephrosis. J Am Med Assoc. 1955;157(11):891–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Casey WC, Goodwin WE. Percutaneous antegrade pyelography and hydronephrosis; direct, intrapelvic injection of urographic contrast material to secure a pyeloureterogram after percutaneous needle puncture and aspiration of hydronephrosis. J Urol. 1955;74(1):164–73.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Smith AD, Lange PH, Miller RP, Reinke DB. Introduction of the Gibbons ureteral stent facilitated by antecedent percutaneous nephrostomy. J Urol. 1978;120(5):543–4.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Castaneda-Zuniga WR, Clayman R, Smith A, Rusnak B, Herrera M, Amplatz K. Nephrostolithotomy: percutaneous techniques for urinary calculus removal. 1982. J Urol. 2002;167(2 Pt 2):849–53. discussion 54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Grasso M, Nord R, Bagley DH. Prone split leg and flank roll positioning: simultaneous antegrade and retrograde access to the upper urinary tract. J Endourol. 1993;7(4):307–10. doi:10.1089/end.1993.7.307.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Hamamoto S, Yasui T, Okada A, Taguchi K, Kawai N, Ando R, et al. Endoscopic combined intrarenal surgery for large calculi: simultaneous use of flexible ureteroscopy and mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy overcomes the disadvantageous of percutaneous nephrolithotomy monotherapy. J Endourol. 2014;28(1):28–33. doi:10.1089/end.2013.0361.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. •• Hamamoto S, Yasui T, Okada A, Takeuchi M, Taguchi K, Shibamoto Y, et al. Developments in the technique of endoscopic combined intrarenal surgery in the prone split-leg position. Urology. 2014;84(3):565–70. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2014.04.020. Preferred positioning when performing a PCNL in the prone position.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Kerbl K, Clayman RV, Chandhoke PS, Urban DA, De Leo BC, Carbone JM. Percutaneous stone removal with the patient in a flank position. J Urol. 1994;151(3):686–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Ray AA, Chung DG, Honey RJ. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the prone and prone-flexed positions: anatomic considerations. J Endourol. 2009;23(10):1607–14. doi:10.1089/end.2009.0294.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Lehman T, Bagley DH. Reverse lithotomy: modified prone position for simultaneous nephroscopic and ureteroscopic procedures in women. Urology. 1988;32(6):529–31.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Ibarluzea G, Scoffone CM, Cracco CM, Poggio M, Porpiglia F, Terrone C, et al. Supine Valdivia and modified lithotomy position for simultaneous anterograde and retrograde endourological access. BJU Int. 2007;100(1):233–6. doi:10.1111/j.1464-410X.2007.06960.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Papatsoris AG, Zaman F, Panah A, Masood J, El-Husseiny T, Buchholz N. Simultaneous anterograde and retrograde endourologic access: “the Barts technique”. J Endourol. 2008;22(12):2665–6. doi:10.1089/end.2008.0283.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Pan TJ, Li GC, Ye ZQ, Wen HD, Shen GQ, Zhang JQ. Flank suspended supine position for percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Urologia. 2012;79(1):58–61. doi:10.5301/RU.2012.9024.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Bach C, Goyal A, Kumar P, Kachrilas S, Papatsoris AG, Buchholz N, et al. The Barts ‘flank-free’ modified supine position for percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Urol Int. 2012;89(3):365–8. doi:10.1159/000341430.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Vicentini FC, Torricelli FC, Mazzucchi E, Hisano M, Murta CB, Danilovic A, et al. Modified complete supine percutaneous nephrolithotomy: solving some problems. J Endourol. 2013;27(7):845–9. doi:10.1089/end.2012.0725.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Sternberg KM, Jacobs BL, King BJ, Wachterman JB, Shahrour K, Theisen KM, et al. The prone ureteroscopic technique for managing large stone burdens. Can J Urol. 2015;22(2):7758–62.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Pakravan M, Kiavash V, Moradian S. Posterior Ischemic Optic Neuropathy Following Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy. J Ophthalmol. 2006;11(4):558-63

  39. Agah M, Ghasemi M, Roodneshin F, Radpay B, Moradian S. Prone position in percutaneous nephrolithotomy and postoperative visual loss. Urol J. 2011;8(3):191–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Falahatkar S, Asli MM, Emadi SA, Enshaei A, Pourhadi H, Allahkhah A. Complete supine percutaneous nephrolithotomy (csPCNL) in patients with and without a history of stone surgery: safety and effectiveness of csPCNL. Urol Res. 2011;39(4):295–301. doi:10.1007/s00240-010-0341-y.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Liu L, Zheng S, Xu Y, Wei Q. Systematic review and meta-analysis of percutaneous nephrolithotomy for patients in the supine versus prone position. J Endourol. 2010;24(12):1941–6. doi:10.1089/end.2010.0292.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. •• Yuan D, Liu Y, Rao H, Cheng T, Sun Z, Wang Y, et al. Supine versus prone position in percutaneous nephrolithotomy for kidney calculi: a meta-analysis. J Endourol. 2016;30(7):754–63. doi:10.1089/end.2015.0402. Meta-analysis comparing supine versus prone PNCL with a robust number of patients.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. • Falahatkar S, Mokhtari G, Teimoori M. An update on supine versus prone percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a meta-analysis. Urol J. 2016;13(5):2814–22. Most recent meta-analysis comparing supine versus prone PCNL. Largest meta-analysis completed to date.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Sharma G, Jangid DK, Yadav SS, Mathur R, Tomar V. Retro-renal colon: role in percutaneous access. Urolithiasis. 2015;43(2):171–5. doi:10.1007/s00240-014-0733-5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Tuttle DN, Yeh BM, Meng MV, Breiman RS, Stoller ML, Coakley FV. Risk of injury to adjacent organs with lower-pole fluoroscopically guided percutaneous nephrostomy: evaluation with prone, supine, and multiplanar reformatted CT. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2005;16(11):1489–92. doi:10.1097/01.RVI.0000175331.93499.44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. •• Ghani KR, Andonian S, Bultitude M, Desai M, Giusti G, Okhunov Z, et al. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy: update, trends, and future directions. Eur Urol. 2016;70(2):382–96. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2016.01.047. Comprehensive review of current PCNL practices and future directions.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. AslZare M, Darabi MR, Shakiba B, Gholami-Mahtaj L. Colonic perforation during percutaneous nephrolithotomy: an 18-year experience. Can Urol Assoc J. 2014;8(5-6):E323–6. doi:10.5489/cuaj.1646.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. El-Nahas AR, Shokeir AA, El-Assmy AM, Shoma AM, Eraky I, El-Kenawy MR, et al. Colonic perforation during percutaneous nephrolithotomy: study of risk factors. Urology. 2006;67(5):937–41. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2005.11.025.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Duty B, Okhunov Z, Smith A, Okeke Z. The debate over percutaneous nephrolithotomy positioning: a comprehensive review. J Urol. 2011;186(1):20–5. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2011.02.2693.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Valdivia Uria JG, Valle Gerhold J, Lopez Lopez JA, Villarroya Rodriguez S, Ambroj Navarro C, Ramirez Fabian M, et al. Technique and complications of percutaneous nephroscopy: experience with 557 patients in the supine position. J Urol. 1998;160(6 Pt 1):1975–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Duvdevani M, Razvi H, Sofer M, Beiko DT, Nott L, Chew BH, et al. Third prize: contemporary percutaneous nephrolithotripsy: 1585 procedures in 1338 consecutive patients. J Endourol. 2007;21(8):824–9. doi:10.1089/end.2007.9936.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Adeyouju AAB SN. Anaesthesia for supine and modified supine PNL. In: Scoffone CM, Hoznek A, Cracco CM, editors. Supine Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy and ECIRS The New Way of Interpreting PNL. Springer; 2014. p. XIII, 312 p. 201 illus., 95 illus. in color.

  53. Gamal W, Moursy E, Hussein M, Mmdouh A, Hammady A, Aldahshoury M. Supine pediatric percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL). J Pediatr Urol. 2015;11(2):78. doi:10.1016/j.jpurol.2014.10.012. e1-5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. • Siev M, Motamedinia P, Leavitt D, Fakhoury M, Barcohana K, Hoenig D, et al. Does peak inspiratory pressure increase in the prone position? An analysis related to body mass index. J Urol. 2015;194(5):1302–6. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2015.05.015. Retrospective review of patient’s peak inspiratory pressure in both the supine and prone positions.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Pelosi P, Croci M, Calappi E, Cerisara M, Mulazzi D, Vicardi P, et al. The prone positioning during general anesthesia minimally affects respiratory mechanics while improving functional residual capacity and increasing oxygen tension. Anesth Analg. 1995;80(5):955–60.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Pelosi P, Croci M, Calappi E, Mulazzi D, Cerisara M, Vercesi P, et al. Prone positioning improves pulmonary function in obese patients during general anesthesia. Anesth Analg. 1996;83(3):578–83.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. • Fuller A, Razvi H, Denstedt JD, Nott L, Hendrikx A, Luke M, et al. The clinical research office of the endourological society percutaneous nephrolithotomy global study: outcomes in the morbidly obese patient—a case control analysis. Can Urol Assoc J. 2014;8(5-6):E393–7. doi:10.5489/cuaj.2258. Case control comparison using the CROES database that looks at effects of morbid obesity in PCNL.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. • Yazici CM, Kayhan A, Dogan C. Supine or prone percutaneous nephrolithotomy: do anatomical changes make it worse? J Endourol. 2014;28(1):10–6. doi:10.1089/end.2013.0541. Anatomical considerations as seen on CT scan in the supine, prone and prone-flex position.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Torrecilla Ortiz C, Meza Martinez AI, Vicens Morton AJ, Vila Reyes H, Colom Feixas S, Suarez Novo JF, et al. Obesity in percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Is body mass index really important? Urology. 2014;84(3):538–43. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2014.03.062.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Goumas-Kartalas I, Montanari E. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy in patients with spinal deformities. J Endourol. 2010;24(7):1081–9. doi:10.1089/end.2010.0095.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Osther PJ, Razvi H, Liatsikos E, Averch T, Crisci A, Garcia JL, et al. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy among patients with renal anomalies: patient characteristics and outcomes; a subgroup analysis of the clinical research office of the endourological society global percutaneous nephrolithotomy study. J Endourol. 2011;25(10):1627–32. doi:10.1089/end.2011.0146.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Tepeler A, Sehgal PD, Akman T, Unsal A, Ozyuvali E, Armagan A, et al. Factors affecting outcomes of percutaneous nephrolithotomy in horseshoe kidneys. Urology. 2014;84(6):1290–4. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2014.08.008.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Wu W, Zhao Z, Zhu H, Yang D, Ou L, Liang Y, et al. Safety and efficacy of minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy in treatment of calculi in horseshoe kidneys. J Endourol. 2014;28(8):926–9. doi:10.1089/end.2013.0760.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Otano N, Jairath A, Mishra S, Ganpule A, Sabnis R, Desai M. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy in pelvic kidneys: is the ultrasound-guided puncture safe? Urology. 2015;85(1):55–8. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2014.08.015.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Violette PD, Dion M, Tailly T, Denstedt JD, Razvi H. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy in patients with urinary tract abnormalities. J Endourol. 2014;28(12):1448–54. doi:10.1089/end.2014.0239.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, University of California, Irvine, 333 City Boulevard West, Suite 2100, Orange, CA, 92868, USA

    Roshan M. Patel, Zhamshid Okhunov, Ralph V. Clayman & Jaime Landman

Authors
  1. Roshan M. Patel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Zhamshid Okhunov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ralph V. Clayman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jaime Landman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Roshan M. Patel.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Roshan M. Patel, Zhamshid Okhunov, Ralph V. Clayman, and Jaime Landman each declare no potential conflicts of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Endourology

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Patel, R.M., Okhunov, Z., Clayman, R.V. et al. Prone Versus Supine Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy: What Is Your Position?. Curr Urol Rep 18, 26 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-017-0676-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-017-0676-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation