Prone vs supine percutaneous nephrolithotomy: does position affect renal pelvic pressures?

IF 2 2区 医学 Q2 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY
Ala’a Farkouh, Kyu Park, Matthew I. Buell, Nicole Mack, Cliff De Guzman, Toby Clark, Elizabeth A. Baldwin, Kanha Shete, Rose Leu, Akin S. Amasyali, Evan Seibly, Kai Wen Cheng, Sikai Song, Zhamshid Okhunov, D. Duane Baldwin
{"title":"Prone vs supine percutaneous nephrolithotomy: does position affect renal pelvic pressures?","authors":"Ala’a Farkouh, Kyu Park, Matthew I. Buell, Nicole Mack, Cliff De Guzman, Toby Clark, Elizabeth A. Baldwin, Kanha Shete, Rose Leu, Akin S. Amasyali, Evan Seibly, Kai Wen Cheng, Sikai Song, Zhamshid Okhunov, D. Duane Baldwin","doi":"10.1007/s00240-024-01555-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The purpose of this study was to measure and compare renal pelvic pressure (RPP) between prone and supine percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) in a benchtop model. Six identical silicone kidney models were placed into anatomically correct prone or supine torsos constructed from patient CT scans in the corresponding positions. A 30-Fr renal access sheath was placed in either the upper, middle, or lower pole calyx for both prone and supine positions. Two 9-mm BegoStones were placed in the respective calyx and RPPs were measured at baseline, irrigating with a rigid nephroscope, and irrigating with a flexible nephroscope. Five trials were conducted for each access in both prone and supine positions. The average baseline RPP in the prone position was significantly higher than the supine position (9.1 vs 2.7 mmHg; <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001). Similarly, the average RPP in prone was significantly higher than supine when using both the rigid and flexible nephroscopes. When comparing RPPs for upper, middle, and lower pole access sites, there was no significant difference in pressures in either prone or supine positions (<i>p</i> &gt; 0.05 for all). Overall, when combining all pressures at baseline and with irrigation, with all access sites and types of scopes, the mean RPP was significantly higher in the prone position compared to the supine position (14.0 vs 3.2 mmHg; <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001). RPPs were significantly higher in the prone position compared to the supine position in all conditions tested. These differences in RPPs between prone and supine PCNL could in part explain the different clinical outcomes, including postoperative fever and stone-free rates.</p>","PeriodicalId":23411,"journal":{"name":"Urolithiasis","volume":"45 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Urolithiasis","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-024-01555-6","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to measure and compare renal pelvic pressure (RPP) between prone and supine percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) in a benchtop model. Six identical silicone kidney models were placed into anatomically correct prone or supine torsos constructed from patient CT scans in the corresponding positions. A 30-Fr renal access sheath was placed in either the upper, middle, or lower pole calyx for both prone and supine positions. Two 9-mm BegoStones were placed in the respective calyx and RPPs were measured at baseline, irrigating with a rigid nephroscope, and irrigating with a flexible nephroscope. Five trials were conducted for each access in both prone and supine positions. The average baseline RPP in the prone position was significantly higher than the supine position (9.1 vs 2.7 mmHg; p < 0.001). Similarly, the average RPP in prone was significantly higher than supine when using both the rigid and flexible nephroscopes. When comparing RPPs for upper, middle, and lower pole access sites, there was no significant difference in pressures in either prone or supine positions (p > 0.05 for all). Overall, when combining all pressures at baseline and with irrigation, with all access sites and types of scopes, the mean RPP was significantly higher in the prone position compared to the supine position (14.0 vs 3.2 mmHg; p < 0.001). RPPs were significantly higher in the prone position compared to the supine position in all conditions tested. These differences in RPPs between prone and supine PCNL could in part explain the different clinical outcomes, including postoperative fever and stone-free rates.

Abstract Image

俯卧位与仰卧位经皮肾镜取石术:体位会影响肾盂压力吗?
本研究的目的是在台式模型中测量和比较俯卧位和仰卧位经皮肾镜取石术(PCNL)的肾盂压力(RPP)。将六个相同的硅胶肾脏模型放入解剖学上正确的俯卧位或仰卧位躯干中,这些躯干是根据患者的 CT 扫描图像以相应的体位制作的。无论是俯卧位还是仰卧位,都在肾上萼、肾中萼或肾下萼放置了一个 30 英尺长的肾通道鞘。在相应的肾盏中放置两颗 9 毫米的 BegoStones,并在基线、使用刚性肾镜灌注和使用柔性肾镜灌注时测量 RPP。在俯卧位和仰卧位时,每种通路都进行了五次试验。俯卧位的平均基线 RPP 明显高于仰卧位(9.1 vs 2.7 mmHg; p < 0.001)。同样,在使用刚性和柔性肾镜时,俯卧位的平均 RPP 也明显高于仰卧位。在比较上、中和下极入路部位的 RPP 时,俯卧位和仰卧位的压力均无明显差异(均为 p >0.05)。总体而言,将基线和灌洗时的所有压力、所有入路部位和所有类型的手术器械结合起来看,俯卧位的平均 RPP 明显高于仰卧位(14.0 vs 3.2 mmHg; p <0.001)。在所有测试条件下,俯卧位的 RPP 都明显高于仰卧位。俯卧位和仰卧位 PCNL 在 RPPs 上的差异可以部分解释不同的临床结果,包括术后发热和无结石率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Urolithiasis
Urolithiasis UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY-
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
6.50%
发文量
74
期刊介绍: Official Journal of the International Urolithiasis Society The journal aims to publish original articles in the fields of clinical and experimental investigation only within the sphere of urolithiasis and its related areas of research. The journal covers all aspects of urolithiasis research including the diagnosis, epidemiology, pathogenesis, genetics, clinical biochemistry, open and non-invasive surgical intervention, nephrological investigation, chemistry and prophylaxis of the disorder. The Editor welcomes contributions on topics of interest to urologists, nephrologists, radiologists, clinical biochemists, epidemiologists, nutritionists, basic scientists and nurses working in that field. Contributions may be submitted as full-length articles or as rapid communications in the form of Letters to the Editor. Articles should be original and should contain important new findings from carefully conducted studies designed to produce statistically significant data. Please note that we no longer publish articles classified as Case Reports. Editorials and review articles may be published by invitation from the Editorial Board. All submissions are peer-reviewed. Through an electronic system for the submission and review of manuscripts, the Editor and Associate Editors aim to make publication accessible as quickly as possible to a large number of readers throughout the world.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信