Comparison between prone and supine nephrolithotomy in pediatric population: a double center experience

• Published in: International urology and nephrology 2022-12, Vol.54 (12), p.3063-3068
• Main Authors: Campobasso, Davide, Bocchialini, Tommaso, Bevilacqua, Luigi, Guarino, Giulio, Di Pietro, Corradino, Granelli, Pietro, Mezzogori, Davide, Salsi, Paolo, Oltolina, Pietro, Gatti, Claudia, Puliatti, Stefano, Ceccarelli, Pier Luca, Maestroni, Umberto, Frattini, Antonio, Bianchi, Giampaolo, Micali, Salvatore, Ferretti, Stefania
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Anterograde transport; Fluoroscopy; Implants; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Nephrology; Patients; Pediatrics; Retrograde transport; Urological surgery; Urology; Urology - Original Paper
• ISSN: 1573-2584; 0301-1623; 1573-2584
• DOI: 10.1007/s11255-022-03341-y

Purpose Stone disease in the pediatric age is an increasing issue. Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy (PNL) can be used for larger and complex stones. As in adults it can be performed in the supine or prone position. Methods We retrospectively reviewed two centers’ experience in prone and supine PNL in children to analyze its results and complications. Results 33 patients underwent prone and 19 supine procedures. Patients in the prone group were younger than in the supine, while no significant differences were found in stone burden, access size, operative time or complications. Complications were: 8 and 4 Clavien 1 for the prone and supine group, respectively, one case of urosepsis (4b) in the prone and 2 cases of Clavien 3 in the supine group (double J stent placement for renal colic and ureteroscopy for steinstrasse). Tubeless procedures and mean nephrostomy time were in favor of the supine group, whereas fluoroscopy time and ureteral drainage stay were in support of the prone group. Stone free rate was better in the supine group (83.3 vs 66.6%), possibly reflecting the capability to perform a combined approach in 12 patients (allowing to reach all the calyx with simultaneous anterograde and retrograde access) or younger age in the prone group (13 vs 2 patients ≤5 years), with no differences in stone burden. Conclusions Supine approach seems to guarantee higher stone-free rates. Larger series are necessary to determine what the best technique is in terms of X-ray exposure, operative time and complications.