Cargando…

Supine versus prone position in percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: The decision for using supine or prone position in percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) is still debatable. The aim of this study is to compare the efficacy and safety profile of the supine and prone position when performing PCNL. Methods: A systematic electronic search was performed usin...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Birowo, Ponco, Tendi, William, Widyahening, Indah S., Rasyid, Nur, Atmoko, Widi
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: F1000 Research Limited 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7509599/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33014345
http://dx.doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.22940.3
_version_ 1783585632075907072
author Birowo, Ponco
Tendi, William
Widyahening, Indah S.
Rasyid, Nur
Atmoko, Widi
author_facet Birowo, Ponco
Tendi, William
Widyahening, Indah S.
Rasyid, Nur
Atmoko, Widi
author_sort Birowo, Ponco
collection PubMed
description Background: The decision for using supine or prone position in percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) is still debatable. The aim of this study is to compare the efficacy and safety profile of the supine and prone position when performing PCNL. Methods: A systematic electronic search was performed using the database from MEDLINE, Cochrane library and Google Scholar from January 2009 to November 2019. The outcomes assessed were stone free rate, major complication rate, length of hospital stay and mean operation time. Results: A total of 11 articles were included in qualitative and quantitative analysis. The efficacy of PCNL in supine position as determined by stone free rate is significantly lower than in prone position (OR: 0.74; 95% CI: 0.66 – 0.83; p<0.00001), However, major complication rate is also lower in the supine group compared with the prone group (OR: 0.70; 95% CI: 0.51 – 0.96; p=0.03). There is no statistically significant difference in the length of hospital stay and mean operation time between both groups. Conclusion: Prone position leads to a higher stone free rate, but also a higher rate of major complication. Thus, the decision of using which position during PCNL should be based on the surgeon’s experience and clinical aspects of the patients.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7509599
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher F1000 Research Limited
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-75095992020-10-01 Supine versus prone position in percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis Birowo, Ponco Tendi, William Widyahening, Indah S. Rasyid, Nur Atmoko, Widi F1000Res Systematic Review Background: The decision for using supine or prone position in percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) is still debatable. The aim of this study is to compare the efficacy and safety profile of the supine and prone position when performing PCNL. Methods: A systematic electronic search was performed using the database from MEDLINE, Cochrane library and Google Scholar from January 2009 to November 2019. The outcomes assessed were stone free rate, major complication rate, length of hospital stay and mean operation time. Results: A total of 11 articles were included in qualitative and quantitative analysis. The efficacy of PCNL in supine position as determined by stone free rate is significantly lower than in prone position (OR: 0.74; 95% CI: 0.66 – 0.83; p<0.00001), However, major complication rate is also lower in the supine group compared with the prone group (OR: 0.70; 95% CI: 0.51 – 0.96; p=0.03). There is no statistically significant difference in the length of hospital stay and mean operation time between both groups. Conclusion: Prone position leads to a higher stone free rate, but also a higher rate of major complication. Thus, the decision of using which position during PCNL should be based on the surgeon’s experience and clinical aspects of the patients. F1000 Research Limited 2020-09-15 /pmc/articles/PMC7509599/ /pubmed/33014345 http://dx.doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.22940.3 Text en Copyright: © 2020 Birowo P et al. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Systematic Review
Birowo, Ponco
Tendi, William
Widyahening, Indah S.
Rasyid, Nur
Atmoko, Widi
Supine versus prone position in percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title Supine versus prone position in percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full Supine versus prone position in percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_fullStr Supine versus prone position in percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Supine versus prone position in percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_short Supine versus prone position in percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_sort supine versus prone position in percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis
topic Systematic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7509599/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33014345
http://dx.doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.22940.3
work_keys_str_mv AT birowoponco supineversuspronepositioninpercutaneousnephrolithotomyasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT tendiwilliam supineversuspronepositioninpercutaneousnephrolithotomyasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT widyaheningindahs supineversuspronepositioninpercutaneousnephrolithotomyasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT rasyidnur supineversuspronepositioninpercutaneousnephrolithotomyasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT atmokowidi supineversuspronepositioninpercutaneousnephrolithotomyasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis