Comparison of Hemodynamic Stability and Pain Control in Lateral and Prone Positions in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

PURPOSE: Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) is the preferred surgical treatment in many cases of kidney stones which is performed in different positions such as prone, lateral, and supine. This study was designed to evaluate whether patient position (lateral versus . prone) has an effect on the need for analgesia and onset of pain after surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patient with confirmed kidney stones (size ? 2 cm) who were candidates for PCNL were enrolled in this study. The required biochemical analyses were performed preoperatively. All patients  underwent spinal anesthesia by the same anesthesiologists and then were randomly divided into two separate groups as lateral (L) and prone (P) positions. The operations' start and end time, required time for proper access into target calyces, additional need for analgesic or cardiac drugs, duration of analgesia, and onset of pain after PCNL were carefully recorded and then compared between the two groups. RESULTS: In total, 51 patients were evaluated of whom 39 were men and 12 were women. Mean duration of analgesia after PCNL surgery in P group (173 ± 8 min) was significantly longer than in L group (147±12 min) (P = .001). Furthermore, the amount of ephedrine usage in L group (3.6 ± 1.5mg) was significantly lower than in the P group (16.4 ± 12mg), suggesting more hemodynamic variations in the P group during the operation. CONCLUSION: Our randomized control trial study shows that choosing the optimal position in the PCNL technique depends on  patient's condition. If hemodynamic control is of matter to the anesthesiologist, then lateral position is more appropriate. However, if control of pain and longer time of analgesia are important,  prone position may be preferred.

Minilaparoscopy vs. standard laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: comparison of safety, efficacy and cosmetic outcomes in a randomized clinical trial.

PURPOSE: This study was conducted to compare safety, efficacy and cosmetic outcome between standard laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy (sLDN) and mini-laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (mLDN) in a randomized clinical trial. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From March 2012 to June 2013, 100 consecutive kidney donors were randomly assigned to two equal groups for laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. mLDN: Six to eight centimeters Pfannenstiel incision was made slightly above pubis symphysis and 11 millimeters trocar was fixed through exposed fascia using open technique. Five mm port was placed under direct vision at the umbilicus for camera insertion and two 3.5 mm ports were placed in subxiphoid and paraumbilical area. sLDN: Ten mm port was placed at umbilicus using open access technique for camera insertion. Five mm trocar for grasping and 11 mm trocar for vascular clipping were placed at subxiphoid and paraumbilical areas under direct vision, respectively. The second 5 mm trocar was placed in suprapubic area. Cosmetic appearance was assessed three months after surgery by using the Patient Scar Assessment Questionnaire (PSAQ). RESULTS: Demographic data of the patients was not significantly different between two groups. Total operative time and ischemic time was nearly similar in both groups (104 ± 21 vs. 114 ± 24 min; P = .327 and 4.03 vs. 4.07 min; P = .592). There were no cases of conversion to open surgery. Mean hospital stay was similar between the two groups [2.1 (2-5) vs. 2.4 (2-5) days; P = .346]. Kidney graft function assessed by serum creatinine val­ues (mg/dL) of recipients, was equivalent in both groups (1.58 vs. 1.86: P = .206). Mean appearance score (34 vs. 29) and consciousness score (22 vs. 18) in PSAQ showed significantly better results in the mLDN group. CONCLUSION: Our experience in this study revealed that peri- and post-operative findings were comparable between sLDN and mLDN, but mLDN has significant better cosmetic appearance than standard laparoscopic approach.