ReviewIndian journal of urology : IJU : journal of the Urological Society of India
Supine versus prone percutaneous nephrolithotomy: A narrative and analytical review of technique.
Review in Indian journal of urology : IJU : journal of the Urological Society of India. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) remains the gold standard for large and complex renal calculi. Although the prone position has traditionally been used since the introduction of PCNL in 1976, supine PCNL and its modifications have gained increasing acceptance with growing evidence supporting their efficacy and safety. This narrative review aims to compare supine and prone PCNL across various domains. Methods: Databases, PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar were included. Priority was given to randomized-controlled trials, meta-analyses, and large prospective studies (>100 patients). Evidence was synthesized across operative, anesthetic, safety and technological domains. Results: Supine PCNL demonstrated stone-free rates comparable to prone PCNL. Multiple meta-analyses showed significantly shorter operative times (by 13-25 min), improved anesthetic safety, reduced radiation exposure, shorter learning curve, lower infectious complications, and superior ergonomics with the supine approach. Supine PCNL facilitates Endoscopic Combined Intrarenal Surgery and is particularly advantageous in obese, pediatric, elderly, and cardiovascular high-risk patients. Miniaturized PCNL techniques further enhance these benefits. Ultrasound-guided access contributes to improved procedural safety, whereas gravity-assisted drainage helps maintain low intrarenal pressure and facilitates gravity-assisted fragment evacuation. Emerging technologies such as vacuum-assisted systems and robotic-assisted PCNL appear inherently more compatible with the supine position. Conclusion: Supine PCNL offers significant operative, anesthetic, and technological advantages while maintaining equivalent stone-free outcomes. It can be considered an equally useful approach in most clinical scenarios, whereas prone PCNL has definite advantages in selected anatomical situations.
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.