What should the optimal access site be for percutaneous treatment of anterior lower pole calyx stones?

OBJECTIVES: Compared to other stone groups, anterior calyx stones are more challenging for endourologists to treat. This study aims to evaluate the differences between our latest technique and conventional techniques for treating anterior calyx stones in the lower pole. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with isolated anterior lower pole calyx or complex lower pole stones with anterior calyx branching were included in the study. The first group included lower pole access, while the second group included percutaneous treatment through the middle or upper pole. In the first group, the posterior calyx or direct anterior calyx approach was utilised depending on whether the stone was isolated calyx, complex structure or calyx anatomy, while in the second group, percutaneous nephrolithotomy was performed through the middle or upper pole posterior calyx access. RESULTS: There were 37 patients in Group 1 and 25 patients in Group 2. Both groups were similar regarding patient age, sex, stone burden, and stone localisation (p > 0.05). When comparing operative and post-operative data between groups, it was found that the stone clearance rate, number of accesses, and haematocrit decrease were statistically superior in the second group (p: 0.003, p: 0.002, p: 0.018), with no significant difference in mean operative time, length of hospital stay, fluoroscopy time and pain score (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Percutaneous surgery utilising an access from a calyx distal to the stone may offer better clearance and lower morbidity rates for lower pole stones involving the anterior calyx.

Which position is more advantageous for percutaneous nephrolithotomy: supine or prone?

Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PNL) can be performed in a number of different positions. Our aim was to evaluate the convenience and advantages of the supine position following the transition from the prone to the supine position. 94 patients undergoing supine PNL (Group-1) and 93 patients undergoing prone PNL (Group-2) were retrospectively reviewed and included in the study. Patients who underwent mini-PNL (mPNL) were selected from Group-1 and Group-2 and divided into Group-1A supine mPNL patients (77) and Group-2A prone mPNL patients (53). Demographic characteristics, operative data and post-operative parameters were compared between these groups. The operation time was 74.4 ± 21.9 min in Group-1A and 79.2 ± 19.8 min in Group-2A (p = 0.076). The median value of fluoroscopy time was 30 s in Group-1A and 40 s in Group-2A (p = 0.003). In Group-1A, 59 patients had no intraoperative double-J stent (DJS) insertion and 18 patients had DJS insertion, while in Group-2A, 24 patients had no DJS insertion and 29 patients had DJS insertion (p < 0.001). MPNL was performed in 81.9% of patients in the supine position and 57% in the prone position. This difference was statistically significant (p < 0.001). No significant difference was found with regard to the success rate and the complications of mPNL. Fluoroscopy time is shorter in the supine position. Moreover, the insertion rates of DJS are low. With increasing experience, we have found that our standard PNL (sPNL) rate is gradually decreasing and more mPNL is being performed.