SUPERIOR INFERIOR CALYCES AXIS IN SAGITTAL VERSUS CORONAL PROJECTION OF NON CONTRAST ABDOMINAL MULTISLICE COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY: AN ANATOMICAL STUDY IN SUPINE PCNL

  • Muhammad Sidharta Krisna Division of Urology, Faculty of Medicine/Gadjah Mada University, Sardjito General Hospital, Yogyakarta
  • Indrawarman Soeroharjo Division of Urology, Faculty of Medicine/Gadjah Mada University, Sardjito General Hospital, Yogyakarta
  • Zulfikar Ali Division of Urology/Department of Surgery, Kardinah General Hospital, Tegal
Keywords: Axis, Calyx, MSCT, coronal, sagittal

Abstract

Objective: Getting the right access to the kidney calyces that has been determined is the most important part of PCNL. Less optimal access can cause an increase in operating time and a decrease in stone free rate. The use of inferior calyx as access decreases the risk of complications, but there are difficulties in reaching the superior calyx, which affects the stone free rate. The angle and depth of the puncture on PCNL can be determined by coronal and sagittal cuts in the non contrast MSCT scan of the abdomen. Material & Methods: This is an analytical study with a prospective cross-sectional method. An analysis was done to 198 samples of patients in Kardinah Tegal Hospital. Samples were taken with 16 slices non-contrast abdominal MSCT using Philips MSCT MX16 (120 kVp; 2x0.75 mm slice thickness). Samples were collected with consecutive sampling method, excluding patients who had a history of other illnesses or surgical history that resulted in anatomical changes in kidney position, age<18 year old, BMI>30 (obesity), grade 4 hydronephrosis (calyces had disappeared). Reconstruction of 3D non contrast abdominal MSCT was performed by measuring the angle of the coronal cut which was simulated as a puncture in the supination position and sagittal cut which was simulated as puncture in pronation position. An imaginary line was drawn from the imaginary point between the iliac crest and 12th rib as high as 3th to 4th lumbar to the inferior renal calyx. Axis was drawn from the inferior renal calyx towards the superior renal calyx. Results: There is significant difference (P=0.000) in the angle of the imaginary line drawn from the inferior calyx to the superior calyx between the right supination position compared to the right pronation position. The angle in the supination position is more gentle 142.8 (±9.7)/(118-165) degrees compared to 96.5 (±13.2)/(11-138) degrees. On the left side, the angle formed from inferior calyx to the superior calyx in the supination position is more gentle 143.4 (±9.6)/(119-162) degrees) compared with 97.3 (±11.2)/(76-132) degrees formed in pronation position, with a value of P=0.000. Conclusion: PCNL puncture with an inferior calyx approach to reach the superior calix on abdominal MSCT without contrast will be easier to do in the supine position. This is because the angle from the inferior calyx to the superior calyx is more gentle in the supine position so that maneuvers are easier to do.

Author Biographies

Muhammad Sidharta Krisna, Division of Urology, Faculty of Medicine/Gadjah Mada University, Sardjito General Hospital, Yogyakarta
Division of Urology/ Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine/Gadjah Mada University, Sardjito General Hospital, Yogyakarta
Indrawarman Soeroharjo, Division of Urology, Faculty of Medicine/Gadjah Mada University, Sardjito General Hospital, Yogyakarta
Division of Urology/ Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine/Gadjah Mada University, Sardjito General Hospital, Yogyakarta
Zulfikar Ali, Division of Urology/Department of Surgery, Kardinah General Hospital, Tegal
Division of Urology/Department of Surgery, Kardinah General Hospital, Tegal

References

Basiri A, Mehrabi S, Kianian H, Javaherforooshzadeh A. Blind pungsi in comparison with fluoroscopic guidance in percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a randomized controlled trial. Urol J. 2007; 4(2): 9-83.

Bozkurt, Ibrahim Halil, et al. 2015. Minimally invasive surgical treatmen for large impacted upper ureteral stone : Ureteroscopic lithoripsy or percutaneous nephrolitotomy. Can Urol Assac. 2015; 9: 3-4.

Brian Duty et al. Anatomical Variation Between the Pronasi, Supinasi, and Supinasi Oblique Positions on Computed Tomography: Implications for Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy Access. Urology. 2012; 79(1).

Chen Jen Shan, Eduardo Mazzucchi, Fabio Payão, Andrea Cavalanti Gomes, Ronaldo Hueb Baroni, Fabio Cesar Torricelli, Fabio Carvalho Vicentini, Miguel Srougi. The skin-to-calyx distance measured by renal ct scan and Ultrasound. Int Braz J Urol. 2014; 40: 212-9

Chien GW, Bellman GC. Blind percutaneous renal access. J Endourol. 2002; 16(2): 93-6.

Cormio L, Annese P, Corvasce T, et al. Percutaneous nephrostomy, in supinasi position. Urology 2007; 69: 377–380.

Davis WB, Trerotola SO, Johnson MS, et al. Percutaneous imaging-guided access for the treatment of calculi in continent urinary reservoirs. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2002; 25: 119–122

Duty B., Waingankar N., Okhunov Z., et.al. Anatomical Variation Between the Pronasi,Supinasi, and Supinasi Oblique Positions on Computed Tomography: Implications for Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy Access. J UROLOGY. 2012; 79: 67–71.

Falahatkar S, Farzan A, Allahkhah A. Is complete supinasi percutaneous nephrolithotripsy feasible in all patients? Urol Res. 2011; 39: 99-104.

Harbans Singh. PCNL Pungsi Technique. JIMSA July-September 2011; 24(3).

Hassan, Amira R. et al. Different Regional Anestesia Techniques for supinasi Percutaneous Nephrolitotomy. Med.J.Kairo. 2010; 663-66.

Liu L, Zheng S, Xu Y, Wei Q. Systematic review and meta-analysis of percutaneous nephrolithotomy for patients in the supinasi versus pronasi position. J Endourol. 2010; 24: 1941.

Marchini G., BertoF., Vicentini F., et al. Preoperative Planning with Noncontrast Computed Tomography in the Pronasi and Supinasi Position for Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy: A Practical Overview. Journal of Endourology. 2014; 20(20): 1-7

Matlaga BR, Shah OD, Zagoria RJ, Dyer RB, Streem SB, Assimos DG. Computerized tomography guided access for percutaneous nephrostolithotomy. J Urol. 2003; 170: 45–47.

Miano R, Scoffone C, De Nunzio C, et al. Position: Pronasi or supinasi is the issue of percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Endourol. 2010; 24: 931–938.

Miller NL, Matlaga BR, Lingeman JE. Techniques for fluoroscopic percutaneousrenal access. J Urol. 2007; 178(1): 15-23.

Mourad Abouelleil et al. . In Obese Patients, the Distance Between Skin and Renal Collecting System Changes with the Position of the Patient from Supinasi to Pronasi. Journal of Endourology. 2015; 29(10).

Park S, Pearle MS. Imaging for percutaneous renal access and management of renal calculi. Urol Clin North Am. 2006; 33: 353–364.

Sofer M., Giusti G., Proietti S., et al. Upper Calyx Approachability through a Lower Calyx Access:Comparison between Pronasi and Supinasi Percutaneous Nephrolithotomies, and Assessment of Anatomical Factors that May Influence It Using 3-Dimensional Computerized Tomography Reconstructions. The Journal of Urology. 2016; 195 :1-6.

Valdivia-Uria JG. Complete supinasi percutaneous nephrolithotripsy comparison with the pronasi standard technique: the time for change from pronasi to supinasi position has come. UroToday Int J. 2009; 2.

Wolf S. Percutaneous Approach to the Upper Urinary Tract Collecting System, Campbell- Walsh Urology. 2012; 47.

Yazici C., Kayhan A., Dogan C. Supinasi or Pronasi Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy: Do Anatomical Changes Make it Worse?. Journal of Endourology. 2014; 28(1): 10-16.

Published
2020-01-22
Section
Articles