Skip to main content
Log in

ECIRS (Endoscopic Combined IntraRenal Surgery) in the Galdakao-modified supine Valdivia position: a new life for percutaneous surgery?

  • Invited Review
  • Published:
World Journal of Urology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PNL) is still the gold-standard treatment for large and/or complex renal stones. Evolution in the endoscopic instrumentation and innovation in the surgical skills improved its success rate and reduced perioperative morbidity. ECIRS (Endoscopic Combined IntraRenal Surgery) is a new way of affording PNL in a modified supine position, approaching antero-retrogradely to the renal cavities, and exploiting the full array of endourologic equipment. ECIRS summarizes the main issues recently debated about PNL.

Methods

The recent literature regarding supine PNL and ECIRS has been reviewed, namely about patient positioning, synergy between operators, procedures, instrumentation, accessories and diagnostic tools, step-by-step standardization along with versatility of the surgical sequence, minimization of radiation exposure, broadening to particular and/or complex patients, limitation of post-operative renal damage.

Results

Supine PNL and ECIRS are not superior to prone PNL in terms of urological results, but guarantee undeniable anesthesiological and management advantages for both patient and operators. In particular, ECIRS requires from the surgeon a permanent mental attitude to synergy, standardized surgical steps, versatility and adherence to the ongoing clinical requirements. ECIRS can be performed also in particular cases, irrespective to age or body habitus. The use of flexible endoscopes during ECIRS contributes to minimizing radiation exposure, hemorrhagic risk and post-PNL renal damage.

Conclusions

ECIRS may be considered an evolution of the PNL procedure. Its proposal has the merit of having triggered the critical analysis of the various PNL steps and of patient positioning, and of having transformed the old static PNL into an updated approach.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ritter M, Krombach P, Michel MS (2011) Percutaneous stone removal. Eur Urol Suppl 10:433–439

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Cracco CM, Scoffone CM, Scarpa RM (2011) New developments in percutaneous techniques for simple and complex branched renal stones. Curr Op Urol 21(2):154–160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Ibarluzea G, Scoffone CM, Cracco CM et al (2007) Supine Valdivia and modified lithotomy position for simultaneous anterograde and retrograde endourological access. BJU Int 100:233–236

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Scoffone CM, Cracco CM, Cossu M, Grande S, Poggio M, Scarpa RM (2008) Endoscopic combined intrarenal surgery in Galdakao-modified supine Valdivia position: a new standard for percutaneous nephrolithotomy? Eur Urol 54:1393–1403

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Scoffone CM, Cracco CM, Poggio M, Scarpa RM (2010) Endoscopic combined intrarenal surgery for high burden renal stones. Arch Ital Urol Androl 82(1):41–42

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. DeRosette JJ, Tsakiris P, Ferrandino MN et al (2008) Beyond prone position in percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a comprehensive review. Eur Urol 54(6):1262–1269

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Miano R, Scoffone C, De Nunzio C et al (2010) Position: prone or supine is the issue of percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Endourol 24(6):931–938

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Cracco CM, Scoffone CM, Poggio M, Scarpa RM (2010) The patient position for PNL: does it matter? Arch Ital Urol Androl 82(1):30–31

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Barak M, Putilov V, Meretyk S, Halachmi S (2010) ETView tracheoscopic ventilation tube for surveillance after tube position in patients undergoing percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Br J Anaesthesiol 104(4):501–504

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Wu SD, Yilmaz M, Tamul PC et al (2009) Awake endotracheal intubation and prone patient self-positioning: anesthetic and positioning considerations during percutaneous nephrolithotomy in obese patients. J Endourol 23(10):1599–1602

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Rau CS, Liang CL, Lui CC et al (2002) Quadriplegia in a patient who underwent posterior fossa surgery in the prone position. J Neurosurg 96(1 Suppl):101–103

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Lehman T, Bagley DH (1988) Reverse lithotomy modified prone position for simultaneous nephroscopic and ureteroscopic procedures in women. Urology 32:529–531

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Kerbl K, Clayman RV, Chandhoke PS et al (1994) Percutaneous stone removal with the patient in the flank position. J Urol 151:686–688

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Gofrit ON, Shapiro A, Donchin A et al (2002) Lateral decubitus position for percutaneous nephrolithotripsy in the morbidly obese or kyphoti c patient. J Endourol 16:383–386

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Grasso M, Nord R, Bagley DH (1993) Prone split leg and flank roll positioning: simultaneous anterograde and retrograde access to the upper urinary tract. J Endourol 7:307–310

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Scarpa RM, Cossu FM, De Lisa A et al (1997) Severe recurrent ureteral stricture, the combined use of an anterograde and retrograde approach in the prone-split-leg position without X-rays. Eur Urol 31:254–256

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. El-Husseiny T, Moraitis K, Maan Z et al (2009) Percutaneous endourologic procedures in high-risk patients in the lateral decubitus position under regional anesthesia. J Endourol 23:1603–1606

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Jang WS, Choi KH, Yang SC, Han WK (2011) The learning curve for flank percutaneous nephrolithotomy for kidney calculi: a single surgeon’s experience. Korean J Urol 52(4):284–288

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Lezrek M, Ammani A, Bazine K et al (2011) The split-keg modified lateral position for percutaneous renal surgery and optimal retrograde access to the upper urinary tract. Urology 78:217–220

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Karami H, Rezaei A, Mohammadhosseini M et al (2010) Ultrasonography-guided percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the flank position versus fluoroscopy-guided percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the prone position: a comparative study. J Endourol 24:1357–1361

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Ray AA, Chung DG, Honey RJ (2009) Percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the prone and prone-flexed positions: anatomic considerations. J Endourol 23:1607–1614

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Honey RJ, Wiesenthal JD, Ghiculete D et al (2011) Comparison of supracostal versus infracostal percutaneous nephrolithotomy using the novel prone-flexed patient position. J Endourol 25:947–954

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Arrabal-Polo MA, Arrabal-Martin M, Saz T, Paiz P (2011) Emergency percutaneous nephrostomy in supine-oblique position without cushion. Urology (in press) (PMID 21567158)

  24. Xu KW, Huang J, Guo ZH et al (2011) Percutaneous nephrolithotomy in semisupine position: a modified approach for renal calculus. Urol Res (in press) (PMID 21336573)

  25. Valdivia Uria JG, Lanchars E, Villaroya S (1987) Percutaneous nephrolithectomy: simplified technique (preliminary report). Arch Esp Urol 40:177–180

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Valdivia Uria JG, Valle GJ, Villaroya S (1990) Why is percutaneous nephroscopy still performed with the patient prone? J Endourol 4:269–272

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Valdivia Uria JG, Valle GJ, Lopez Lopez JA et al (1998) Technique and complications of percutaneous nephroscopy: experience with 557 patients in the supine position. J Urol 160:1975–1978

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Shoma AM, Eraky I, El-Kenawy MR et al (2002) Percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the supine position: technical aspects and functional outcome compared with the prone technique. Urology 60:388–392

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Ng MT, Sun WH, Cheng CW, Chan ES (2004) Supine position is safe and effective for percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Endourol 18:469–474

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Chedid Neto EA, Mitre AI, Mendes Gomes C et al (2007) Percutaneous nephrolithotripsy with the patient in a modified supine position. J Urol 178:165–168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Steele D, Marshall V (2007) Percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the supine position: a neglected approach? J Endourol 21:1433–1437

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Falahaktar S, Moghaddam AA, Salhei M et al (2008) Complete supine percutaneous nephrolithotripsy comparison with the prone standard position. J Endourol 22:2513–2517

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Rana AM, Bhojwani JP, Hoenig DM et al (2008) Tubeless PCNL with patient in the supine position: procedure for all seasons? With comprehensive technique. Urology 71:581–585

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Daels F, Gonzalez MS, Garcia Freire F et al (2009) Percutaneous lithotripsy in Valdivia-Galdakao decubitus position: our experience. J Endourol 23(10):1615–1620

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Hoznek A, Rode J, Ouzaid I et al (2011) Modified supine percutaneous nephrolithotomy for large kidney and ureteral stones: technqiue and results. Eur Urol (in press) (PMID 21570174)

  36. Anusionwu IM, Wright EJ (2011) Compartment syndrome after positioning in lithotomy: what a urologist needs to know. BJU Int 108:477–481

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. De Sio M, Autorino R, Quarto G et al (2008) Modified supine versus prone position in percutaneous nephrolithotomy for renal stones treatable with a single percutaneous access: a prospective randomized trial. Eur Urol 54:196–203

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Amon Sesmero JH, Del Valle GM, Conde Redondo C et al (2008) Comparison between Valdivia position and prone position in percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Actas Urol Esp 32:424–429

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Basiri A, Mohammadi Sichani M (2009) Supine percutaneous nephrolithotomy, is it really effective? A systematic review of literature. Urol J 6:73–77

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Liu L, Zheng S, Xu Y, Wei Q (2010) Systematic review and meta-analysis od percutaneous nephrolithotomy for patients in the supine versus prone position. J Endourol 24:1941–1946

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Zhou X, Gao X, Wen J, Xiao C (2008) Clinical value of minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the supine position under the guidance of real-time ultrasound: report of 92 cases. Urol Res 36(2):111–114

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Basiri A, Mohammadi Sichani M, Hosseini SR, Moradi Vadjargah A et al (2010) X-ray-free percutaneous nephrolithotomy in supine position with ultrasound guidance. World J Urol 28(2):239–244

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Falahatkar S, Neuroomand H, Enshael A et al (2010) Totally ultrasound versus fluoroscopically guided complete supine percutaneous nephrolithotripsy: a first report. J Endourol 24(9):1421–1426

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Chen ML, Shukla G, Jackman SV et al (2011) Real-time tomographic reflection in facilitating percutaneous access to the renal collecting system. J Endourol 5:743–745

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Tepeler A, Binbay M, Yuruk E et al (2009) Factors affecting the fluoroscopic screening time during percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Endourol 23:1825–1829

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Lipkin ME, Mancini JG, Zilberman DE et al (2011) Reduced radiation exposure with the use of an air retrograde pyelogram during fluoroscopic access for percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Endourol 25(4):563–567

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Dogan HS, Kilicarslan H, Kordan Y et al (2011) Percutaneous nephrolithotomy in children: does age matter? World J Urol (in press) (PMID 21590468)

  48. Frattini A, Ferretti S, Salvaggio A (2010) Percutaneous nephrolithotripsy (PCNL) in children: experience of Parma. Arch Ital Urol Androl 82(1):51–52

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. McCarthy JP, Skinner TA, Norman RW (2011) Urolithiasis in the elderly. Can J Urol 18(3):5717–5720

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Karami H, Mazloomfard MM, Golshan A et al (2010) Does age affect outcomes of percutaneous nephrolithotomy? Urol J 7(1):17–21

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. El-Assmy AM, Shokeir AA, El-Nahas AR et al (2007) Outcome of percutaneous nephrolithotomy: effect of body mass index. Eur Urol 52(1):199–204

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Manohar T, Jain P, Desai M (2007) Supine percutaneous nephrolithotomy: effective approach to high-risk and morbidly obese patients. J Endourol 21(1):44–49

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Scoffone CM, Cracco CM, Scarpa RM et al (2011) International cooperation in endourology: supine versus prone percutaneous nephrolithotomy in obese patients. Arch Ital Urol Androl 83(1 Suppl 1):10–11

    Google Scholar 

  54. Goumas-Cartalas I, Montanari E (2010) Percutaneous nephrolithotomy in patients with spinal deformities. J Endourol 24(7):1081–1089

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Oliveira M, Branco F, Martins L, Lima E (2011) Percutaneous nephrolithotomy in renal transplants: a safe approach with a high stone-free rate. Int Urol Nephrol 43:329–335

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Aminsharifi A, Alavi M, Sadeghi G et al (2011) Renal parenchymal damage after percutaneous nephrolithotomy with one-stage tract dilation technique: a randomized clinical trial. J Endourol 25(6):927–931

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Marguet CG, Springhart WP, Tan Y et al (2005) Simultaneous combined use of flexible ureteroscopy and percutaneous nephrolithotomy to reduce the number of access tracts in the management of complex renal calculi. BJU Int 96(7):1097–1100

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Williams SK, Leveillee RJ (2008) Management of staghorn calculus: single puncture with judicious use of the flexible nephroscope. Curr Op Urol 18(2):224–228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Ganpule AP, Mishra S, Desai MR (2009) Multiple versus single perc with flexible instrumentation for staghorn calculi. J Endourol 23(10):1675–1678

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Akman T, Sari E, Binbay M et al (2010) Comparison of outcomes after percutaneous nephrolithotomy of staghorn calculi in those with single and multiple accesses. J Endourol 24(6):955–960

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cesare Marco Scoffone.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Cracco, C.M., Scoffone, C.M. ECIRS (Endoscopic Combined IntraRenal Surgery) in the Galdakao-modified supine Valdivia position: a new life for percutaneous surgery?. World J Urol 29, 821–827 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-011-0790-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-011-0790-0

Keywords

Navigation