Based on study design alone it was not possible for the authors to prove any of their proposed advantages of sPCNL. To their credit, the authors fully acknowledged that the major limitation of this project was the study design and the fact it was not a prospective randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing supine and prone PCNL.
Both meta-analyses concluded that the two positions showed equivalency for stone-free rates and complication rates.[sup.2,3] Additionally, both found sPCNL resulted in shorter OR times.