Advantages and disadvantages of percutaneous surgery of urolithiasis in the patient’s supine position

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Studying the clinical features of different surgical approaches in patients with urolithiasis with stones localized in the kidney and the upper third of the ureter is an important practical issue in modern urology.

AIM: The aim of the study is a clinical evaluation of the results of percutaneous surgery for urolithiasis with the patient in the supine position.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: The results of surgical treatment of 316 patients with urolithiasis with stones localized in the kidney (more than 10 mm) and the upper third of the ureter (more than 8 mm) are presented. All patients underwent percutaneous nephrolithotripsy in the supine position.

RESULTS: Complete elimination of stones was achieved in 91.3% of patients with stones of the upper third of the ureter and 96.2% of patients with kidney stones. Clinical evaluation of the surgical results showed that the frequency of intraoperative complications of traumatic origin is about 10%, the most common complication being bleeding. At the same time, complications of grades IV and V according to the Clavien–Dindo classification were noted. Performing percutaneous nephrolithotripsy in the supine position reduces the time required to position the patient, allows for the combination of transurethral and percutaneous interventions, is more effective for patients with increased weight and concomitant diseases, and also provides a significant advantage in the need for ventilation and possible resuscitation.

CONCLUSIONS: It is advisable to introduce a personalized approach to the choice of surgical access when performing invasive interventions on the upper urinary tract.

Keywords

urolithiasis / nephrolithiasis / percutaneous nephrolithotripsy / percutaneous access / patient’s supine position

References

[1] Suleimanov SI. Urolithiasis: clinical and biochemical aspects of pathogenesis, diagnosis and treatment [dissetation]. Moscow: 2018. 221 p. (In Russ.)

[2] Сулейманов С.И. Мочекаменная болезнь: клинико-биохимические аспекты патогенеза, диагностики и лечения: дис. … д-ра мед. наук. Москва, 2018. 221 с.

[3] Galkina NG, Kalinina EA, Galkin AV. Urolithiasis: modern concepts of etiology of disease (review). Saratov Journal of Medical Scientific Research. 2020;16(3):773–779.

[4] Галкина Н.Г., Калинина Е.А., Галкин, А.В. Мочекаменная болезнь: современные представления об этиологии (обзор) // Саратовский научно-медицинский журнал. 2020. Т. 16, № 3. С. 773–779.

[5] Bobylev DA, Chekhonatskaya ML, Osadchuk MA, et al. Prediction of the result of remote shock-wave lithotripsia in patients with nephrolythisis. REJR. 2018;8(2):110–115. DOI: 10.21569/2222-7415-2018-8-2-110-115

[6] Бобылев Д.А., Чехонацкая М.Л., Осадчук М.А., и др. Прогнозирование результатов дистанционной ударноволновой литотрипсии у больных нефролитиазом // Российский электронный журнал лучевой диагностики. 2018. Т. 8, № 2. C. 110–115. DOI: 10.21569/2222-7415-2018-8-2-110-115

[7] Khanaliev BV, Gusarov VG, Butareva DV, et al. Infectious complications of percutaneous nephrolithotripsy in patients at infected kidney stones. Bulletin of Pirogov National Medical & Surgical Center. 2021;16(4):138–140. DOI: 10.25881/20728255_2021_16_4_138

[8] Ханалиев Б.В., Гусаров В.Г., Бутарева Д.В., и др. Инфекционные осложнения перкутанной нефролитотрипсии при инфицированных конкрементах почек // Вестник Национального медико-хирургического центра им. Н.И. Пирогова. 2021. Т. 16, № 4. С. 138–140. DOI: 10.25881/20728255_2021_16_4_138

[9] Tivtikyan AS, Savilov AV, Okhobotov DA, et al. Hereditary factor of metaphylaxis of urolithiasis: current state of the issue. Experimental and Clinical Urology. 2022;15(1):76–84. DOI: 10.29188/2222-8543-2022-15-1-76-84

[10] Тивтикян А.С., Савилов А.В., Охоботов Д.А., и др. Наследственный фактор метафилактики мочекаменной болезни: современное состояние вопроса // Экспериментальная и клиническая урология. 2022. Т. 15, № 1. C. 76–84. DOI: 10.29188/2222-8543-2022-15-1-76-84

[11] Saenko VS, Pesegov SV, Vovdenko SV. A modern view of the mechanisms of urinary stone formation and the principles of general metaphylaxis of urolithiasis. Spravochnik Poliklinicheskogo Vracha. 2018;(1):33–38.

[12] Саенко В.С., Песегов С.В., Вовденко С.В. Современный взгляд на механизмы образования мочевых камней и принципы общей метафилактики мочекаменной болезни // Справочник поликлинического врача. 2018. № 1. C. 33–38.

[13] Sitdykova ME, Viktorov EA, Zubkov AJ. Modern methods of surgical treatment of staghorn nephrolithiasis. Kazan Medical Journal. 2021;102(1):60–73. DOI: 10.17816/KMJ2021-60

[14] Ситдыкова М.Э., Викторов Е.А., Зубков А.Ю. Современные методы хирургического лечения коралловидного нефролитиаза // Казанский медицинский журнал. 2021. Т. 102, № 1. C. 60–73. DOI: 10.17816/KMJ2021-60

[15] Zubkov IV, Zhidkova EA, Sevryukov FA, et al. Organizational aspects of urolithiasis treatment in a hospital. Medical Newsletter of Vyatka. 2020;4(68):57–65. DOI: 10.24411/2220-7880-2020-10132

[16] Зубков И.В., Жидкова Е.А., Севрюков Ф.А., и др. Организационные аспекты лечения мочекаменной болезни в условиях стационара // Вятский медицинский вестник. 2020. № 4(68). C. 57–65. DOI: 10.24411/2220-7880-2020-10132

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

Eco-Vector