Comparison of hemodynamic and respiratory outcomes between two surgical positions for percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a prospective, randomized clinical trial

Giusti, 2020, PCNL in the prone position VS PCNL in the modified supine Double-S position: is there a better position? A prospective randomized trial, Urolithiasis, 48, 63, 10.1007/s00240-018-1088-0 Wu, 2011, Supine versus prone position in percutaneous nephrolithotomy for kidney calculi: a meta-analysis, Int Urol Nephrol, 43, 67, 10.1007/s11255-010-9801-0 Peces-Barba, 2004, Lower pulmonary diffusing capacity in the prone vs. supine posture, J Appl Physiol, 96, 1937, 10.1152/japplphysiol.00255.2003 Kerbl, 1994, Percutaneous stone removal with the patient in a flank position, J Urol, 151, 686, 10.1016/S0022-5347(17)35048-6 Desoky, 2012, 1029 Biochemical and haemodynamic changes in flank free modified supine position versus prone position during percutaneous nephrolithotomy, Eur Urol Suppl, 11, 1029a, 10.1016/S1569-9056(12)61025-2 Edgcombe, 2008, Anaesthesia in the prone position, Br J Anaesth, 100, 165, 10.1093/bja/aem380 Wang, 2013, Prone versus modified supine position in percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a prospective randomized study, Int J Med Sci, 10, 1518, 10.7150/ijms.6305 Pelosi, 1995, The prone positioning during general anesthesia minimally affects respiratory mechanics while improving functional residual capacity and increasing oxygen tension, Anesth Analg, 80, 955 Pelosi, 1996, Prone positioning improves pulmonary function in obese patients during general anesthesia, Anesth Analg, 83, 578, 10.1213/00000539-199609000-00025 Chiumello, 2016, Airway driving pressure and lung stress in ARDS patients, Crit Care, 20, 1, 10.1186/s13054-016-1446-7 Aoyama, 2018, Association of driving pressure with mortality among ventilated patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis, Crit Care Med, 46, 300, 10.1097/CCM.0000000000002838 Serpa Neto, 2016, Associations between ventilator settings during extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for refractory hypoxemia and outcome in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome: a pooled individual patient data analysis, Intensive Care Med, 42, 1672, 10.1007/s00134-016-4507-0 Bellani, 2016, Epidemiology, patterns of care, and mortality for patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome in intensive care units in 50 countries, JAMA, 315, 788, 10.1001/jama.2016.0291 Radfar, 2021, A study on comparative outcomes of totally ultrasonography-guided percutaneous nephrolithotomy in prone versus flank position: a randomized clinical trial, World J Urol, 39, 4241, 10.1007/s00345-021-03744-z Karami, 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, 10.1089/end.2009.0099 Karami, 2013, A study on comparative outcomes of percutaneous nephrolithotomy in prone, supine, and flank positions, World J Urol, 31, 1225, 10.1007/s00345-012-0889-y Jang, 2011, The learning curve for flank percutaneous nephrolithotomy for kidney calculi: a single surgeon’s experience, Korean J Urol, 52, 284, 10.4111/kju.2011.52.4.284 Tanriverdi, 2007, The learning curve in the training of percutaneous nephrolithotomy, Eur Urol, 52, 206, 10.1016/j.eururo.2007.01.001 Allen, 2005, Defining the learning curve for percutaneous nephrolithotomy, J Endourol, 19, 279, 10.1089/end.2005.19.279 Li, 2019, Supine versus prone position for percutaneous nephrolithotripsy: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials, Int J Surg, 66, 62, 10.1016/j.ijsu.2019.04.016 Kocan, 2022, Independent risk factors affecting hemorrhage in percutaneous nephrolithotomy: retrospective study, Actas Urol Esp (Engl Ed), 46, 544, 10.1016/j.acuro.2021.12.012 Falahatkar, 2016, An update on supine versus prone percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a meta-analysis, Urol J, 13, 2814 Kargı, 2022, Optimal patient position for percutaneous nephrolithotomy in horseshoe kidneys: traditional prone or supine?, Actas Urol Esp (Engl Ed), 46, 565, 10.1016/j.acuro.2021.10.002