ArticleUrology research & practice2024
Prospective Comparative Analysis of Supine Versus Prone Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy in Patients with Complex Renal Stone Disease and Difficult Anatomy.
Article in Urology research & practice, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A Comparison of Postoperative Urological Infection Rates Between Supine and Prone Positions During Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy.Urology research & practice · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveIn complex renal stone disease, few studies have shown that supine percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) is not inferior to prone PCNL. In our study, we evaluated the safety and efficacy of supine versus prone PCNL in patients with complex renal stone disease and patients with difficult anatomy.
methodsWe prospectively analyzed 106 patients over 15 months from October 2022 to December 2023 and divided them as group S (Calcutta position supine arm) and group P (classical prone arm) by simple randomization. The measured data included body mass index (BMI), stone size, location of stone, number of punctures/ access, tract length, bleeding, operative time, stone-free rate (SFR), length of hospital stay, and postoperative complications.
resultsThe operative time was 104.722 ± (34.48) versus 124.30 ± (22.67) minutes (group S vs. group P), which was significant (P=.01). The nephroscopy time was 89.722 ± 34.55 in group S vs. 92.212 ± 20.18 minutes, which was also significant (P = .01). The mean postoperative hospital stay was 3.889 ± 1.09 and 4.558 ± 1.33 days in supine and prone group (P = .021), respectively. Four patients in group S required re-look PCNL in comparison to 8 in group P. Overall SFR at 1 month was 76.92% and 68.51% (P .331), respectively in case of group S and P.
conclusionThe study revealed that supine position in Calcutta position is a viable alternative to classical prone position even in patients with complex renal stone and patients with difficult anatomy as major complications are less, SFR is higher, and need of auxiliary procedures are rare.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.