Simultaneous antegrade/retrograde upper urinary tract access: Bart's modified lateral position for complex upper tract endourologic pathologic features

Lateral percutaneous nephrolithotomy: A safe and effective surgical approach

Introduction:

Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) is traditionally performed with the patient in the prone position for large renal calculi. However, anesthetic limitations exist with the prone position. Similarly, the supine position is associated with poorer ergonomics due to the awkward downward position of the renal tract, a smaller window for percutaneous puncture, and a higher risk of anterior calyx puncture. This study aimed to demonstrate the feasibility and safety of lateral-PCNL in managing large renal calculi without the disadvantages of prone and supine positions.

Methods:

Retrospectively, 347 lateral-PCNL cases performed from July 2001 to July 2015 were examined. the patient's thorax, abdomen, and pelvis were positioned over a bridge perpendicular to a “broken” table, creating an extended lumbodorsal space. The procedure was evaluated in terms of stone clearance at 3 months’ postprocedure, operative time, and complications.

Results:

Primary stone clearance was achieved in 82.7% of patients. The mean operating time was 97 min. The average time taken to establish the tract and mean radiation time were 4.5 min and 6.93 min, respectively. In total, 2.3% of patients required postoperative transfusion, and 13.5% of patients had postoperative fever. There was one case of hydrothorax, but no bowel perforation.

Conclusions:

Our lateral-PCNL technique allows for effective stone clearance due to good stone ergonomics and it should be considered as a safe alternative even in the most routine procedures.

What is better in percutaneous nephrolithotomy - Prone or supine? A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To review the literature reporting the technique of percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) and outcomes for prone and supine PCNL, as PCNL is an established treatment for renal calculi and both prone and supine PCNL have been described, but there has been much debate as to the optimal position for renal access in PCNL.

METHODS

A review of the medical literature was conducted using the PubMed database to identify relevant studies reporting on prone and supine PCNL published up until July 2015. Only publications in English were considered. Search terms included 'supine', 'prone', 'percutaneous nephrolithotomy', 'PCNL' and 'randomised controlled trial'. Articles relevant to the particular aspect of PCNL discussed were selected.

RESULTS

In all, 30 articles were included in the literature review. Nine of these articles were of Level 1 Evidence as graded by the Oxford System of Evidence-based Medicine.

CONCLUSION

The present systematic review highlights the benefits and disadvantages of supine and prone PCNL. The published data on supine and prone PCNL have shown no significant superiority of either approach. Whether prone or supine PCNL is optimal, remains a debatable topic.

The ideal puncture approach for PCNL: Fluoroscopy, ultrasound or endoscopy?

Percutaneous renal access is a common procedure in urologic practice. The main indications are drainage of an obstructed and hydronephrotic kidney and antegrade renal access prior to percutaneous renal surgeries such as percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) and percutaneous endopyelotomy (EP). The contraindications for this technique are patients with history of allergy to topical or local anesthesia and patients with coagulopathy. The creation of a percutaneous tract into the renal collecting system is one of the important steps for percutaneous renal access. This step usually requires imaging. The advantages and disadvantages of each modality of image guidance are controversial. We performed a structured review using the terms: Percutaneous nephrostomy, guidance, fluoroscopy, ultrasonography, computed tomography (CT) scan, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). The outcomes are discussed.

Endoscopic-guided versus fluoroscopic-guided renal access for percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a comparative analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the intraoperative outcomes of percutaneous renal access using fluoroscopic-guided access (FGA) vs endoscopic-guided access (EGA).

METHODS

A retrospective record review was conducted of patients undergoing percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL), categorized by the method of achieving renal access. Patients were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 endourologists: 1 practicing EGA and the other practicing FGA. Patient demographics, baseline characteristics, and operative and postoperative outcomes were compared using univariate and multivariate analysis.

RESULTS

From August 2010 to January 2012, 159 patients underwent PCNL (40% EGA, 60% FGA). No significant difference was observed between groups in age (P = .06), American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status Classification (P = .7), number of stones (P = .058), cumulative stone diameter (P = .051), number of calyces involved (P = .82), and stone density (P = .49). Body mass index (BMI) was higher in patients undergoing EGA (P = .013). Patients undergoing EGA had shorter fluoroscopy time (3.2 vs 16.8 minutes, P <.001) and lower access number (1.03 vs 1.22 P = .002). Fluoroscopy time was longer for FGA than for EGA after adjusting for BMI, staghorn stones, and access number (P <.001). No significant difference was noted in change in hemoglobin, blood transfusion rate, operative time, or intraoperative complications between groups. Procedures were aborted due to bleeding more commonly in the FGA (8%) than in the EGA group (0%, P = .02) A secondary procedure for stone management was required in 2 (3.2%) of the EGA group compared with 12 (12.5%) of the FGA group.

CONCLUSION

EGA is safe and effective and leads to decreased fluoroscopy time, decreased need for multiple accesses, and decreased risk of early termination of the procedure or need for secondary procedures.

Renal vascular Doppler resistance after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy

OBJECTIVES

Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) is mainly an alternative for other therapeutic methods such as surgery and endourology to treat urinary tract calculus. Although it is safe and effective, it has undesirable effects on renal function. Diagnostic techniques such as color Doppler ultrasonography create a new attitude toward renal function. The aim of this study was to evaluate renal vascular resistance change before and after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy.

METHODS

During the present study, vascular resistive index (RI) of renal intralobar artery was measured before, 30 min, and 1 week after ESWL using Doppler ultrasonography.

RESULTS

Thirty minutes after ESWL, RI was significantly increased from primary value of 0.62 ± 0.05 to 0.66 ± 0.06 (p = 0.0001). There was no correlation between increase of RI and patients' age. Following up the patients revealed that mean RI did not return to pretreatment level after 1 week (p < 0.05). The RI level in the old patients (3 patients who were 60 years or older) was higher than that of the younger ones (19 patients who were younger than 60 years) after 1 week (0.76 ± 0.05 vs. 0.64 ± 0.06). There was no meaningful relationship between ESWL voltage or number of shocks and RI variation before and after ESWL.

CONCLUSION

Following ESWL, patients are at risk of renal tissue damage due to increase of primary RI level. Measuring RI variations using ultrasound techniques after ESWL may provide helpful information to clinical detection of renal tissue damage.

Positions for percutaneous nephrolithotomy: Thirty-five years of evolution

Objectives

To present the chronological development of the different positions described for percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL), in an attempt to identify the reasons for their development and to highlight their specific advantages and disadvantages.

Methods

Previous reports were identified by a non-systematic search of Medline and Scopus.

Results

The classic prone position for PCNL was first described in 1976. The technique was gradually standardised and PCNL with the patient prone became the generally accepted standard approach. In the next 35 years many other positions were described, with the patient placed prone, lateral or supine in various modifications. Modifications of the classic prone position in the early 1990s aimed to provide the option of a simultaneous retrograde approach during the procedure. As PCNL became more popular the lateral position was first described in 1994, to allow the application of PCNL to patients who were unable to tolerate being prone because of their body habitus. The supine position for percutaneous access was originally described even before 1990, but become more popular after 2007 when the Galdakao modification was reported. Several other modifications of the supine position have been described, with the latest being the flank-free modified supine position, which allows the best exposure of the flank among the supine positions. Each position has its specific advantages and disadvantages.

Conclusion

Urologists who perform PCNL should be familiar with the differences in the positions and be able to use the method appropriate to each case.

Ureteroscopic treatment of larger renal calculi (>2 cm)

Objectives

To evaluate the current status of ureteroscopic lithotripsy (UL) for treating renal calculi of >2 cm, as advances in flexible ureteroscope design, accessory instrumentation and lithotrites have revolutionised the treatment of urinary calculi. While previously reserved for ureteric and small renal calculi, UL has gained an increasing role in the selective management of larger renal stone burdens.

Methods

We searched the available databases, including PubMed, Google Scholar, and Scopus, for relevant reports in English, and the article bibliographies to identify additional relevant articles. Keywords included ureteroscopy, lithotripsy, renal calculi, and calculi >2 cm. Retrieved articles were reviewed to consider the number of patients, mean stone size, success rates, indications and complications.

Results

In all, nine studies (417 patients) were eligible for inclusion. After one, two or three procedures the mean (range) success rates were 68.2 (23–84)%, 87.1 (79–91)% and 94.4 (90.1–96.7)%, respectively. Overall, the success rate was >90% with a mean of 1.2–2.3 procedures per patient. The overall complication rate was 10.3%, including six (1.4%) intraoperative and 37 (8.9%) postoperative complications, most of which were minor. The most common indications for UL were a failed previous treatment (46%), comorbidities (18.2%), and technical and anatomical factors (12.3%).

Conclusions

UL is safe and effective for treating large renal calculi. While several procedures might be required for total stone clearance, UL should be considered a standard approach in the urologist’s options treating renal calculi of >2 cm.