Prashant Singh1, Rishi Nayyar2, Barun Bagga3,4, Sanjay Sharma3, Amlesh Seth1, Prabhjot Singh1, Brusabhanu Nayak1. 1. Department of Urology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, 110029, India. 2. Department of Urology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, 110029, India. nayyarrishi@gmail.com. 3. Department of Radiology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, 110029, India. 4. Department of Radiology, New York University School of Medicine, New York, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the anatomical changes in kidney orientation in prone position with use of horizontal or vertical bolster alignment. METHODS: Patients having renal stone(s) on ultrasonogram or X-ray underwent split bolus computed-tomo-urography (CTU) in prone position with horizontal and vertical bolster positions. CTUs were read by a single radiologist to quantify the cranio-caudal, antero-posterior, side to side and rotational movements of kidneys as relevant to prone percutaneous nephrolithotomy. RESULTS: 19 adult patients with 38 renal units and mean basal metabolic index of 25.6 kg/m2 underwent CTU. Greater inferior displacement of both kidneys was seen with horizontal bolsters as compared to vertical bolsters. The right upper calyceal-diaphragm distance was 2.1 ± 1.5 cm and the lower calyceal-diaphragm distance was 2.0 ± 1.6 cm greater with the horizontal bolsters (p < 0.01). Similarly, the displacement on the left side was 1.5 ± 0.8 cm and 1.4 ± 0.8 cm, respectively (p < 0.01). Horizontal bolsters also result in significantly longer calyceal-skin distance at both poles of both kidneys [right upper: 0.4 ± 0.5 cm (p < 0.01), right lower: 0.8 ± 0.7 cm (p < 0.01), left upper: 0.4 ± 0.6 cm (p = 0.02), left lower: 0.8 ± 1.1 cm (p < 0.01)] and wider erector spinae-mid posterior calyceal-colon angle (124.8 v/s 110.0 on the right and 96.2 v/s 85.7 on the left) (p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Horizontal bolsters provide significantly more caudal displacement of the kidneys; the right kidney being displaced more as compared to the left. However, there is also an increase in the skin-calyceal distance with horizontal as compared to the vertical bolsters. These assessments may help the surgeons decide optimal bolster position individualized to the patient.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the anatomical changes in kidney orientation in prone position with use of horizontal or vertical bolster alignment. METHODS: Patients having renal stone(s) on ultrasonogram or X-ray underwent split bolus computed-tomo-urography (CTU) in prone position with horizontal and vertical bolster positions. CTUs were read by a single radiologist to quantify the cranio-caudal, antero-posterior, side to side and rotational movements of kidneys as relevant to prone percutaneous nephrolithotomy. RESULTS: 19 adult patients with 38 renal units and mean basal metabolic index of 25.6 kg/m2 underwent CTU. Greater inferior displacement of both kidneys was seen with horizontal bolsters as compared to vertical bolsters. The right upper calyceal-diaphragm distance was 2.1 ± 1.5 cm and the lower calyceal-diaphragm distance was 2.0 ± 1.6 cm greater with the horizontal bolsters (p < 0.01). Similarly, the displacement on the left side was 1.5 ± 0.8 cm and 1.4 ± 0.8 cm, respectively (p < 0.01). Horizontal bolsters also result in significantly longer calyceal-skin distance at both poles of both kidneys [right upper: 0.4 ± 0.5 cm (p < 0.01), right lower: 0.8 ± 0.7 cm (p < 0.01), left upper: 0.4 ± 0.6 cm (p = 0.02), left lower: 0.8 ± 1.1 cm (p < 0.01)] and wider erector spinae-mid posterior calyceal-colon angle (124.8 v/s 110.0 on the right and 96.2 v/s 85.7 on the left) (p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Horizontal bolsters provide significantly more caudal displacement of the kidneys; the right kidney being displaced more as compared to the left. However, there is also an increase in the skin-calyceal distance with horizontal as compared to the vertical bolsters. These assessments may help the surgeons decide optimal bolster position individualized to the patient.
Authors: Giovanni S Marchini; Fernanda Christina G Berto; Fabio C Vicentini; Chen Jen Shan; Miguel Srougi; Eduardo Mazzucchi Journal: J Endourol Date: 2015-01 Impact factor: 2.942
Authors: Raed A Azhar; Konrad M Szymanski; Emmanuelle Lemercier; David Valenti; Sero Andonian; Maurice Anidjar Journal: J Endourol Date: 2011-03-25 Impact factor: 2.942