Analyzing learning curve for supine percutaneous nephrolithotomy in urology resident training programme: comparative analysis.
Humans
Nephrolithotomy, Percutaneous
/ education
Learning Curve
Internship and Residency
/ statistics & numerical data
Retrospective Studies
Supine Position
Urology
/ education
Female
Male
Kidney Calculi
/ surgery
Middle Aged
Adult
Operative Time
Patient Positioning
Fluoroscopy
Clinical Competence
/ statistics & numerical data
Learning curve
Percutaneous nephrolithotomy
Renal stone
Supine position
Urology resident
Journal
Urolithiasis
ISSN: 2194-7236
Titre abrégé: Urolithiasis
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 101602699
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
09 Sep 2024
09 Sep 2024
Historique:
received:
13
07
2024
accepted:
26
08
2024
medline:
9
9
2024
pubmed:
9
9
2024
entrez:
9
9
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
This article attempts to provide a comprehensive review of the learning objectives and importance of the supine percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) technique. We retrospectively reviewed the cases of Supine PCNL between January 2018 and January 2024. We divided the groups into 3: residents between 2 and 3 years (Group 1), residents between 4 and 5 years (Group 2), and endourologist (Group 3). The 2-3-year resident started to perform PCNL for the first time, while the 4-5-year resident started to perform Supine PCNL for the first time while previously performing prone PCNL. Access, fluoroscopy, and operation time were higher in Group 1, shorter in Group 2, and shortest in Group 3 (p < 0.001). Postoperative length of stay and the need for additional treatment were found to be shorter (p < 0.001), and the stone-free rate (SFR) increased (p < 0.001) from Group 1 to Group 3. The highest complication rates were observed in Group 1 (p = 0.002). SFR rate increased as the number of cases increased in Group 1 patients. Success was stable after 46-60 cases in terms of SFR. In Group 2, the SFR rate was stable after 31-45. The most complications were observed in Group 1 and the least in Group 3. In 2-3-year residents, access time and fluoroscopy time decrease with experience. In 4-5-year residents, due to their expertise in prone PCNL, the operation time and fluoroscopy time decrease with the number of cases performed. SFR is higher after 46-60 cases for 2-3-year residents and 31-45 cases for 4-5-year residents.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39249559
doi: 10.1007/s00240-024-01624-w
pii: 10.1007/s00240-024-01624-w
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Comparative Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
129Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.
Références
Birowo P, Tendi W, Widyahening IS et al (2020) Supine versus prone position in percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. F1000Res 9:231. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.22940.3
doi: 10.12688/f1000research.22940.3
pubmed: 33014345
pmcid: 7509599
Zhang X, Xia L, Xu T et al (2014) Is the supine position superior to the prone position for percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL)? Urolithiasis 42:87–93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-013-0614-3
doi: 10.1007/s00240-013-0614-3
pubmed: 24141694
Choudhury S, Sinha Roy PP, Pal DK (2024) Calcutta position: a new modified supine decubitus for supine PCNL. Urologia 91:125–130. https://doi.org/10.1177/03915603231191268
doi: 10.1177/03915603231191268
pubmed: 37632393
Batagello CA, Barone Dos Santos HD, Nguyen AH et al (2019) Endoscopic guided PCNL in the prone split-leg position versus supine PCNL: a comparative analysis stratified by Guy’s stone score. Can J Urol 26:9664–9674
pubmed: 30797250
Lim EJ, Tanidir Y, Ganesan S et al (2022) Influence of Webinar-based learning on practice of Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy: outcomes of a global survey. J Endourol 36:279–286. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2021.0445
doi: 10.1089/end.2021.0445
pubmed: 34583533
Birowo P, Rustandi R, Risky Raharja PA et al (2022) The learning curve for a single surgeon using ultrasonography to guide supine percutaneous nephrolithotomy with an alken metal telescopic dilator. Heliyon 2022 8:e12524. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e12524
doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e12524
Pareek G, Hedican SP, Lee FT Jr, Nakada SY (2005) Shock wave lithotripsy success determined by skin-to-stone distance on computed tomography. Urology 66(5):941–944. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2005.05.011
doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2005.05.011
pubmed: 16286099
Thomas K, Smith NC, Hegarty N et al (2011) The Guy’s stone score–grading the complexity of percutaneous nephrolithotomy procedures. Urology 277–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2010.12.026
Heidar NA, Labban M, Nguyen DD et al (2022) Does volume matter? Incorporating estimated stone volume in a nomogram to predict ureteral stone passage. Can Urol Assoc J 16:E150–E154. https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.7364
doi: 10.5489/cuaj.7364
pubmed: 34672936
Özlü DN, Ekşi M, Şahin S et al (2024) Effect of access sheath diameter used in percutaneous nephrolithotomy on renal function: a prospective randomized study. Urolithiasis 52:100. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-024-01582-3
doi: 10.1007/s00240-024-01582-3
pubmed: 38922347
Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240:205–213. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.sla.0000133083.54934.ae
doi: 10.1097/01.sla.0000133083.54934.ae
pubmed: 15273542
pmcid: 1360123
Falahatkar S, Moghaddam AA, Salehi M et al (2008) Complete supine percutaneous nephrolithotripsy comparison with the prone standard technique. J Endourol 22:2513–2517. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2008.0463
doi: 10.1089/end.2008.0463
pubmed: 19046091
Sabnis R, Desai MR, Singh A (2022) Supine Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy. J Endourol 36:S35–S40. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2022.0299
doi: 10.1089/end.2022.0299
pubmed: 36154451
Wang X, Zhang Y, Zhao F et al (2022) Learning curves of flexible ureteroscopy (275 cases) and Prone Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy (73 cases) in Pediatric stones: data from 348 children. J Endourol 36:1502–1508. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2021.0757
doi: 10.1089/end.2021.0757
pubmed: 35670260
Allen D, O’Brien T, Tiptaft R et al (2005) Defining the learning curve for percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Endourol 19:279–282. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2005.19.279
doi: 10.1089/end.2005.19.279
pubmed: 15865512
Tanriverdi O, Boylu U, Kendirci M et al (2007) The learning curve in the training of percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Eur Urol 52:206–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2007.01.001
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2007.01.001
pubmed: 17229522
Jang WS, Choi KH, Yang SC et al (2011) The learning curve for Flank Percutaneous nephrolithotomy for kidney calculi: a single surgeon’s experience. Korean J Urol 52:284–288. https://doi.org/10.4111/kju.2011.52.4.284
doi: 10.4111/kju.2011.52.4.284
pubmed: 21556217
pmcid: 3085623
Garg A, Yadav SS, Tomar V et al (2016) Prospective evaluation of learning curve of Urology residents for Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy. Urol Pract 3:230–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urpr.2015.06.009
doi: 10.1016/j.urpr.2015.06.009
pubmed: 37592550
Reddy SVK, Shaik AB, Srinivas K (2016) Surgical Training in Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy: The Learning Curve. Kidney Urol Res 2016;2:008
Quirke K, Aydin A, Brunckhorst O et al (2018) Learning curves in Urolithiasis surgery: a systematic review. J Endourol 32:1008–1020. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2018.0425
doi: 10.1089/end.2018.0425
pubmed: 30039711
Negrete-Pulido O, Molina-Torres M, Castaño-Tostado E et al (2010) Percutaneous renal access: the learning curve of a simplified approach. J Endourol 24:457–460. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2009.0210
doi: 10.1089/end.2009.0210
pubmed: 20055665
Ziaee SA, Sichani MM, Kashi AH et al (2010) Evaluation of the learning curve for percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Urol J 7:226–231
pubmed: 21170850
Bucuras V, Bardan R, Muresan A et al (2011) The role of the learning curve in supine percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Endourol 1:A292–A292
Sahan M, Sarilar O, Savun M et al (2020) Adopting for Supine Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy: analyzing the learning curve of Tertiary Academic Center Urology Team. Urology 140:22–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2020.03.022
doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2020.03.022
pubmed: 32268174
Falahatkar S, Esmaeili S, Rastjou Herfeh N et al (2022) The safety of continued low dose aspirin therapy during complete supine percutaneous nephrolithotomy (csPCNL). Prog Urol 32:458–464. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.purol.2021.04.005
doi: 10.1016/j.purol.2021.04.005
pubmed: 34154964
Ayranci A, Caglar U, Cakir H et al (2024) Inter-observer Reliability and Reproducibility of CROES, Guy’s and STONE Nephrolithometry Scoring systems for Predicting Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy outcomes. New J Urol 19:85–89. https://doi.org/10.33719/nju1388671
doi: 10.33719/nju1388671
Watterson JD, Soon S, Jana K (2006) Access related complications during percutaneous nephrolithotomy: urology versus radiology at a single academic institution. J Urol 176:142–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(06)00489-7
doi: 10.1016/S0022-5347(06)00489-7
pubmed: 16753389
Jessen JP, Honeck P, Knoll T et al (2013) Percutaneous nephrolithotomy under combined sonographic/radiologic guided puncture: results of a learning curve using the modified Clavien grading system. World J Urol 31:1599–1603. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-012-1016-9
doi: 10.1007/s00345-012-1016-9
pubmed: 23283412
Yu W, Rao T, Li X et al (2017) The learning curve for access creation in solo ultrasonography-guided percutaneous nephrolithotomy and the associated skills. Int Urol Nephrol 49:419–424. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-016-1492-8
doi: 10.1007/s11255-016-1492-8
pubmed: 28035623
Falahatkar R, Falahatkar S, Khajavi Gaskarei MA et al (2024) The global, prevalence, and risk factors of postoperative fever after percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Asian J Urol 11:253–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajur.2022.04.008
doi: 10.1016/j.ajur.2022.04.008
pubmed: 38680584