TY - JOUR
T1 - Comparison of Prone and Supine Positions for Suction Mini Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy (PCNL) for Kidney Stone Disease. Results from a Prospective Multicenter Series from the Endourology Section of the European Association of Urology and the Suction Mini-PCNL Collaborative Study Group
AU - Castellani, Daniele
AU - Gauhar, Vineet
AU - Kalathia, Jaisukh
AU - Mehta, Amish
AU - Gadzhiev, Nariman
AU - Malkhasyan, Vigen
AU - Kumar, Nitesh
AU - Kalbit, Rajiv H.
AU - Gorgotsky, Ivan
AU - Gokce, Mehmet Ilker
AU - Laymon, Mahmoud
AU - Inoue, Takaaki
AU - Tak, Gopal Ramdas
AU - Baker, Abu
AU - Dholaria, Pankaj
AU - Chawla, Arun
AU - Beltrán-Suárez, Edgar
AU - Mahajan, Abhay
AU - Fong, Khi Yung
AU - Yuen, Steffi Kar Kei
AU - Tan, Karl
AU - Omar, Mohamed
AU - Petkova, Kremena
AU - Taguchi, Kazumi
AU - Ketsuwan, Chinnakhet
AU - Lakmichi, Mohamed Amine
AU - Palaniappan, Sundaram
AU - Tanidir, Yiloren
AU - Akdogan, Nebil
AU - Cepeda, Marcos
AU - Martov, Alexey
AU - Tokhtiyev, Zelimkhan
AU - Tzelves, Lazaros
AU - Skolarikos, Andreas
AU - Acuña, Esteban
AU - Zawadzki, Marek
AU - Kamal, Wissam
AU - Lopes, Leonardo Gomes
AU - Gorelov, Dmitriy
AU - Agrawal, Madhu Sudan
AU - Mohan, Vaddi Chandra
AU - Herrmann, Thomas R.W.
AU - Somani, Bhaskar K.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2025 European Association of Urology
PY - 2026/3
Y1 - 2026/3
N2 - Background and objective: The optimal patient position for percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) remains a matter of debate. Our aim was to evaluate the association between prone versus supine positioning and perioperative and postoperative outcomes of suction mini-PCNL. Methods: In this prospective multicenter observational study, we analyzed data for 1534 patients treated in 30 centers between March and November 2024. Outcomes included the stone-free rate (SFR) assessed via 30-d computed tomography, and complication rates. Multivariable analysis was used to assess the effect of prone positioning on stone-free status (zero fragments) and overall complications, with adjustment for other covariates. Key findings and limitations: There were 653 patients (43%) in the prone group and 881 (57%) in the supine group. Patient demographics were similar between the groups, except for body mass index. In terms of Guy's stone score, the prone group had a higher proportion of score 1 stones (60% vs 47%) and the supine group a higher proportion of score 4 stones (6.9% vs 3.2%). Median stone volume did not differ significantly, at 1636 mm3 in the supine group and 1725 mm3 in the prone group (p = 0.7). The prone group had more frequent use of spinal anesthesia (68% vs 29%; p < 0.001), fluoroscopy-only guidance (86% vs 61%; p < 0.001), and supracostal access (36% vs 22%; p < 0.001). Surgical time, pain scores, hospital length of stay, and readmission rates were similar between the groups. Zero-fragment stone-free rates were comparable (85% prone vs 81% supine; p = 0.052). Prone position was associated with higher rates of blood transfusion (2.8% vs 0%; p < 0.001), renal pelvic perforation (2.8% vs 0.23%; p < 0.001), and pneumothorax (1.5% vs 0%; p < 0.001). Multivariable analysis revealed that prone positioning was not significantly associated with grade A stone-free status (odds ratio 0.92, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.66–1.29; p = 0.6) or the overall complication rate (odd ratio 0.87, 95% CI 0.59–1.28; p = 0.5). The nonrandomized study design may have introduced selection bias and limited our ability to establish causal relationships between variables. Conclusions and clinical implications: Both prone and supine positioning for PCNL achieved excellent SFRs with acceptable safety profiles.
AB - Background and objective: The optimal patient position for percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) remains a matter of debate. Our aim was to evaluate the association between prone versus supine positioning and perioperative and postoperative outcomes of suction mini-PCNL. Methods: In this prospective multicenter observational study, we analyzed data for 1534 patients treated in 30 centers between March and November 2024. Outcomes included the stone-free rate (SFR) assessed via 30-d computed tomography, and complication rates. Multivariable analysis was used to assess the effect of prone positioning on stone-free status (zero fragments) and overall complications, with adjustment for other covariates. Key findings and limitations: There were 653 patients (43%) in the prone group and 881 (57%) in the supine group. Patient demographics were similar between the groups, except for body mass index. In terms of Guy's stone score, the prone group had a higher proportion of score 1 stones (60% vs 47%) and the supine group a higher proportion of score 4 stones (6.9% vs 3.2%). Median stone volume did not differ significantly, at 1636 mm3 in the supine group and 1725 mm3 in the prone group (p = 0.7). The prone group had more frequent use of spinal anesthesia (68% vs 29%; p < 0.001), fluoroscopy-only guidance (86% vs 61%; p < 0.001), and supracostal access (36% vs 22%; p < 0.001). Surgical time, pain scores, hospital length of stay, and readmission rates were similar between the groups. Zero-fragment stone-free rates were comparable (85% prone vs 81% supine; p = 0.052). Prone position was associated with higher rates of blood transfusion (2.8% vs 0%; p < 0.001), renal pelvic perforation (2.8% vs 0.23%; p < 0.001), and pneumothorax (1.5% vs 0%; p < 0.001). Multivariable analysis revealed that prone positioning was not significantly associated with grade A stone-free status (odds ratio 0.92, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.66–1.29; p = 0.6) or the overall complication rate (odd ratio 0.87, 95% CI 0.59–1.28; p = 0.5). The nonrandomized study design may have introduced selection bias and limited our ability to establish causal relationships between variables. Conclusions and clinical implications: Both prone and supine positioning for PCNL achieved excellent SFRs with acceptable safety profiles.
KW - Kidney calculi
KW - Percutaneous nephrolithotomy
KW - Prone position
KW - Sheath
KW - Suction
KW - Supine position
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/105032444569
U2 - 10.1016/j.euf.2025.10.003
DO - 10.1016/j.euf.2025.10.003
M3 - Article
C2 - 41168029
AN - SCOPUS:105032444569
SN - 2405-4569
VL - 12
SP - 208
EP - 216
JO - European Urology Focus
JF - European Urology Focus
IS - 2
ER -