Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy (PCNL) is the standard procedure for large renal stones. This study was conducted to compare the conventional Prone position PCNL with the newer concept of Supine PCNL. A prospective, randomised controlled, double blind study was conducted in 100 patients planned for PCNL. They were randomised into 2 groups with 50 patients each and PCNL was performed either in the prone or supine position. The patient groups were compared for the length of hospital stay, duration of surgery, postoperative and intra operative complications, postoperative stone free status, and requirement of adjunctive procedures. Stone free rates were significantly better for the supine PCNL group. Post operative complications such as fever was more for Prone PCNL group. The other parameters that were not statistically significant were mean operating time which was less for the supine group and duration of hospital stay which was less for the supine group. There was no difference in the other complication rates between the two procedures. The requirement of additional procedures for stone clearance were also same between both the groups. To conclude, Our study demonstrates that supine PCNL is a better technique than prone PCNL in terms of stone free rates, post-operative complications such as fever, lesser number of punctures required for stone clearance and more tubeless procedures.
Background
Mayo Adhesive Probability (MAP) score is based on posterior perinephric fat thickness and perinephric fat stranding and ranges from 0 to 5. We intend to validate the score and identify preoperative factors predictive of Adherent Perinphric Fat (APF) encountered in robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy.
Methods
The retrospective and prospective observational study was done at a single tertiary care hospital after appropriate ethical clearance. Sixty-two patients with clinical stage cT1 renal mass planned for robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy were selected over a study period of 3 years after obtaining informed consent. Data that were collected included demographic details and perioperative details including CT renal angiography which was done in all patients preoperatively. Intraoperative and postoperative data were collected. Associations of patient and tumor characteristics with the presence of APF during RAPN were evaluated by multivariable logistic regression models and using Chi-square test to calculate p value.
Results
Out of total 62 patients included; 24 patients (38.7%) had intraoperative Adhesive Perinephric Fat (APF). Three patients required conversion to open surgery and three patients underwent conversion to radical nephrectomy. Thirty-five patients were males. Mean age was 51.27(20–77) years. We noted an increased likelihood of APF with an increase in age (p = 0.003), higher preoperative creatinine (p = 0.003), greater posterior perinephric fat thickness (p = 0.002), and perirenal fat stranding (p < 0.001). From these four variables, posterior perinephric fat thickness and fat stranding were the most predictive. The combined score given to these two highly predictive factors for APF and the calculated score, termed Mayo Adhesive Probability (MAP) score ranges from 0 to 5. APF was seen in 10.7% of patients with a MAP score of 0, 25% with a score of 1, 50% with a score of 2, 44.4% with a score of 3, 88.8% with a score of 4, and 100% of patients with a score of 5 was found. Our study validates the MAP score given by Davidiuk et al. Smoking, high BMI, Sex of patient, tumor size, lateral perinephric fat thickness do not significantly predict APF in our study.
Conclusion
MAP score can be easily calculated from a CT scan. We validate the MAP score in RAPN. Higher MAP score has higher APF which would be useful to all urologists doing RAPN.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.