Percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the prone and prone-flexed positions: anatomic considerations.

OBJECTIVES: Percutaneous nephrolithotomy is commonly performed in the prone position. Knowledge of renal anatomy and the relationship of adjacent organs is essential to minimize patient morbidity and iatrogenic organ injury. We present the anatomical basis for a prone-flexed modification to patient positioning and review the advantages and disadvantages of alternate positions. METHODS: Triphasic computed tomography was conducted with the patient in supine, prone, and prone-flexed positions, and an anatomical survey was conducted. A 30 degrees angle was used to approximate the plane of nephrostomy access and the risk of organ injury. RESULTS: For upper pole punctures, the liver and spleen were more medially situated, and thus more likely to be injured with supine positioning, compared with either prone or prone-flexed positioning (p < 0.001). In contrast, for lower pole punctures, the colon was more medially situated in the prone and prone-flexed positions compared to supine (p < 0.001). With prone-flexed positioning, the left kidney was displaced lower than the right in 92.3% of cases. The prone-flexed modification increased the distance from the posterior iliac crest to the 12th and 11th ribs by 2.9 and 3.0 cm, respectively (p < 0.001). If access was performed in the most superior calyx, this would have converted an upper pole access above the 11th rib to one above the 12th rib in 5 of 11 patients (45.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Prone-flexed positioning is a simple modification that provides improved access to the upper pole and more mobility for lower pole percutaneous nephrolithotomy. This position is well tolerated and has several advantages over other patient positions, including the supine position.

Stone attenuation and skin-to-stone distance on computed tomography predicts for stone fragmentation by shock wave lithotripsy.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether stone attenuation and the skin-to-stone distance (SSD) can predict for stone fragmentation by SWL independently. Identifying the factors predictive of shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) outcome would help streamline the care of patients with stones. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed of 111 patients undergoing initial SWL for a solitary, 5-20 mm, renal calculus. Stone size, location, attenuation value, and SSD were determined on pretreatment noncontrast computed tomography. The outcome was categorized as stone free, complete fragmentation <5 mm, and incomplete fragmentation >or=5 mm or unchanged at 2 weeks on kidney/ureter/bladder radiography. RESULTS: After SWL, 44 (40%) were stone free, 27 (24%) had complete fragmentation, and 40 (36%) of 111 patients had incomplete fragmentation. The stone attenuation of the successfully treated patients (stone free and complete fragmentation groups) was 837 +/- 277 Hounsfield units (HU) vs 1092 +/- 254 HU for those with treatment failure (incomplete fragmentation; P < .01). The mean SSD also differed: 9.6 cm +/- 2.0 vs 11.1 cm +/- 2.5 for the successful treatment group vs the treatment failure group, respectively (P = .01). On multivariate analysis, the factors that independently predicted the outcome were stone attenuation, SSD, and stone composition. When patients were stratified into 4 risk groups (stone <900 HU and SSD <9.0 cm, stone <900 HU and SSD >or=9.0 cm, stone >or=900 HU and SSD <9.0 cm, and stone >or=900 HU and SSD >or=9.0 cm), the SWL success rate was 91%, 79%, 58%, and 41%, respectively (odds ratio 7.1, 95% confidence interval 1.6-32 for <900 HU and SSD <9.0 cm group vs other 3 risk groups; P = .01). CONCLUSIONS: The results of our study have shown that a stone attenuation of <900 HU, SSD of <9 cm, and stone composition predict for SWL success, independent of stone size, location, and body mass index. These factors will be considered important in the prospective design of a SWL treatment nomogram at our center.