Comparison of supine and prone miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the treatment of lower pole, middle pole and renal pelvic stones: A matched pair analysis

ABSTRACT Purpose We aimed to compare the outcomes of supine and prone miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy (m-PNL) in the treatment of lower pole, middle pole and renal pelvic stones. Materials and Methods 54 patients who performed supine m-PNL between January 2017 and March 2018 and 498 patients who performed prone m-PNL between April 2015 and January 2018 were included in the study. Of the 498 patients, 108 matching 1: 2 in terms of age, gender, body mass index, American Association of Anesthesiology score, stone size, stone localization and hydronephrosis according to the supine m-PNL group were selected as prone m-PNL group. The patients with solitary kidney, upper pole stone, urinary system anomaly or skeletal malformation and pediatric patients (<18 years old) were excluded from the study. The success was defined as 'complete stone clearance' and was determined according to the 1st month computed tomography. Results The operation time and fluoroscopy time in supine m-PNL was significantly shorter than prone m-PNL group (58.1±45.9 vs. 80.1±40.0 min and 3.0±1.7 min vs. 4.9±4.5 min, p=0.025 and p=0.01, respectively). When post-operative complications were compared according to the modified Clavien-Dindo classification, overall and subgroup complication rates were comparable between groups. There was no significant difference between the groups in terms of the success rates (supine m-PNL; 72.2%, prone m-PNL; 71.3%, p=0.902). Conclusions Supine m-PNL procedure is more advantageous in terms of operation time and fluoroscopy time in the treatment of lower pole, middle pole and renal pelvic stones.

Fosfomycin: a good alternative drug for prostate biopsy prophylaxis the results of a prospective, randomized trial with respect to risk factors

ABSTRACT Purpose: To determine the risk factors and the efficiency of rectal swab samples to prevent infectious complications in prostate biopsy, and compare fosfomycin with ciprofloxacin use in prophylaxis. Materials and Methods: Between May and October 2014, pre-biopsy risk factors and their effect in ciprofloxacin and fosfomycin prophylaxis were determined. Pre-biopsy urinalysis, urine culture and rectal swab samples were obtained from all of the patients. Rectal swabs were obtained upon admission, and biopsy was performed in the following 3-7 days. The place of rectal swab samples and efficiency of fosfomycin use was evaluated. Results: Pre-biopsy rectal swabs were obtained from 110 patients who revealed 60.9% fluoroquinolone resistance (FQR), and 32.7% fluoroquinolone sensitivity (FQS). Fosfomycin resistance was present in 3 patients. Ciprofloxacin use in last 6 months was the only risk factor for FQR. Antibiotic prophylaxis was given to both groups with and without risk factors, according to swab results, and no infective complications were observed. Among the group where fosfomycin was used empirically, one patient had an infection needing hospitalization, however this constitutes no statistical difference between the Group that fosfomycin used empirically or according to swab results (p=0.164). Conclusions: In prostate biopsy prophylaxis, ciprofloxacin may be used liberally in patients without risk factors, but it should be given according to the rectal swab results in the patients with risk, and fosfomycin may be used independently of risk factors and rectal swab results.