Skip to main content

01.12.2015 | Technical advance | Ausgabe 1/2015 Open Access

BMC Urology 1/2015

A comparison of supracostal and infracostal access approaches in treating renal and upper ureteral stones using MPCNL with the aid of a patented system

BMC Urology > Ausgabe 1/2015
Difu Fan, Leming Song, Donghua Xie, Min Hu, Zuofeng Peng, Xiaohui Liao, Tairong Liu, Chuance Du, Lunfeng Zhu, Lei Yao, Jianrong Huang, Zhongsheng Yang, Shulin Guo, Wen Qin, Jiuqing Zhong, Zhangqun Ye
Wichtige Hinweise
Difu Fan, Leming Song, Donghua Xie, Min Hu, Zuofeng Peng and Xiaohui Liao contributed equally to this work.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Authors’ contributions

DF, LS, MH, ZP, XL collected the data and participated in drafting the manuscript. DX drafted the manuscript. DX, XL, LS and ZY (Zhangqun Ye) advanced the manuscript by revising it critically. TL, CD, LZ, LY, JH, ZY (Zhongsheng Yang), SG, WQ, and JZ collected the data. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.



There are still disagreements on which is a better approach to choose to establish percutaneous tract for percutaneous nephrolitotomy (PCNL), between supracostal and infracostal approaches. The aim of this study is to investigate the safety, efficacy and practicability of minimally invasive PCNL (MPCNL) with the aid of a patented system either through supracostal or through infracostal access.


A retrospective study was carried out for 83 patients with renal or upper ureteral stones. Under the guidance of B ultrasound or C-arm, these patients were treated by MPCNL through either 12th rib infracostal (Group 1, 43 cases) or supracostal (Group 2, 40 cases) access approach. These 2 groups were compared for total number of percutaneous tracts, average time in establishing a given percutaneous tract, the number of percutaneous tract used for each case, the average stone clearance time, the clearance rate of all stones by one surgery, and the amount of bleeding using a single percutaneous tract.


There was a significantly smaller total number of percutaneous tracts needed, a smaller number of cases that needed two percutaneous tracts to clear stones completely, a shorter average time in establishing a percutaneous tract, and a smaller average amount of bleeding in infracostal access group. At the same time, there were a significantly larger number of cases in which stones were cleared completely using a single percutaneous tract and a higher renal stone clearance rate by one surgery.


There were several advantages of infracostal access. These included accuracy in establishing a percutaneous tract, safety, quickness, convenience and flexibility in moving the patented sheath, and higher renal and upper ureteral stone clearance rate by one surgery.
Über diesen Artikel

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2015

BMC Urology 1/2015 Zur Ausgabe

Neu im Fachgebiet Urologie

Mail Icon II Newsletter

Bestellen Sie unseren kostenlosen Newsletter Update Urologie und bleiben Sie gut informiert – ganz bequem per eMail.