{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,10,2]],"date-time":"2026-10-02T07:54:32Z","timestamp":1790927672156,"version":"4.1.0"},"reference-count":20,"publisher":"S. Karger AG","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2026,9,5]],"date-time":"2026-09-05T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1788566400000},"content-version":"vor","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/karger.com\/pages\/terms-and-conditions"},{"start":{"date-parts":[[2026,9,5]],"date-time":"2026-09-05T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1788566400000},"content-version":"tdm","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/karger.com\/pages\/terms-and-conditions"}],"content-domain":{"domain":[],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":["Urol Int"],"abstract":"<jats:p>Introduction: The aim of the study was to compare the safety and efficacy of endoscopy-assisted supine percutaneous nephrolithotomy (ePNL) with standard supine percutaneous nephrolithotomy (sPNL). Methods: This study included patients aged over 18 with a stone size of \u22652 cm, an American Society of Anesthesiologists score of \u22643, and a body mass index of \u226435 who underwent ePNL or sPNL at our hospital between January 2021 and August 2021. Eligible patients, selected based on inclusion and exclusion criteria, were randomized using a computer-generated random table. Perioperative and postoperative data were compared between the two groups. Results: A total of 60 patients were included in the study. Demographic data and stone characteristics were similar between the groups. The access fluoroscopy time was comparable between the groups; however, the total fluoroscopy time (TFT) was significantly shorter in the ePNL group (31.5 s vs. 197.5 s, p &lt; 0.0001). The amount of bleeding, assessed by hemoglobin drop, was higher in the sPNL group (p = 0.03). The success rate of guidewire placement into the ureter after access was higher in the supine ePNL group compared to the sPNL group (66.6% vs. 36.6%, p = 0.038). There was no statistically significant difference in overall complication rates between the groups (p = 0.272). Stone-free rates were 86.6% for ePNL and 80% for sPNL (p = 0.488). Conclusion: The ePNL method is a safe and effective technique characterized by less bleeding, shorter fluoroscopy time, and successful guidewire placement into the ureter, with similar success and complication rates to sPNL.<\/jats:p>","DOI":"10.1159\/uin\/aewag022","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2026,9,4]],"date-time":"2026-09-04T11:16:59Z","timestamp":1788520619000},"page":"1-1","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":0,"title":["Comparative Analysis of the Safety and Efficacy of Endoscopy-Assisted Supine Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy versus Standard Supine Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy: A Randomized Prospective Study"],"prefix":"10.1159","author":[{"given":"Joshgun","family":"Huseynov","sequence":"first","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Deniz Noyan","family":"\u00d6zl\u00fc","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Feyzi Arda","family":"Atar","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Ali \u0130hsan","family":"Ta\u015f\u00e7\u0131","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]}],"member":"127","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2026,9,5]]},"reference":[{"key":"ref1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1080\/21681805.1976.11882084"},{"key":"ref2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1097\/01.ju.0000161171.67806.2a"},{"key":"ref3","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.4103\/0970-1591.117284"},{"key":"ref4","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1259\/bjr.71.842.9579182"},{"key":"ref5","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1097\/01.HP.0000356672.44380.b7"},{"key":"ref6","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.urology.2011.12.027"},{"key":"ref7","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1089\/end.2009.1530"},{"key":"ref8","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.urology.2012.10.004"},{"key":"ref9","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.juro.2016.01.118"},{"key":"ref10","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/s0022-5347(17)37024-6"},{"key":"ref11","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/s0090-4295(03)00006-2"},{"key":"ref12","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1089\/end.2006.20.451"},{"key":"ref13","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.eururo.2007.06.049"},{"key":"ref14","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1002\/14651858.CD007044.pub3"},{"key":"ref15","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1089\/end.2009.0256"},{"key":"ref16","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.eururo.2011.09.016"},{"key":"ref17","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/s0022-5347(17)49573-5"},{"key":"ref18","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/s0022-5347(17)40056-5"},{"key":"ref19","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1089\/end.2010.0302"},{"key":"ref20","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.juro.2008.10.012"}],"container-title":["Urologia Internationalis"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/karger.com\/article-pdf\/doi\/10.1159\/uin\/aewag022","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2026,10,2]],"date-time":"2026-10-02T07:18:28Z","timestamp":1790925508000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/karger.com\/article\/doi\/10.1159\/uin\/aewag022"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2026,9,5]]},"references-count":20,"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1159\/uin\/aewag022","archive":["Portico"],"relation":{},"ISSN":["0042-1138","1423-0399"],"issn-type":[{"value":"0042-1138","type":"print"},{"value":"1423-0399","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2026,9,5]]}}}