medigraphic.com
Organo Oficial de la Sociedad Mexicana de Urología

2017, Number 4

<< Back Next >>

Rev Mex Urol 2017; 77 (4)

Comparison of the most popular methods for predicting stonefree rate after percutaneous nephrolithotomy

Ugalde-Resano R, Villeda-Sandoval CI, Kobashi-Sandoval E, Rivera-Ramírez JA, Vargas-Robles MA, Méndez-Probst CE

Language: English
References: 34
Page: 279-288
PDF size: 303.74 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Background: The Guy’s stone score, S.T.O.N.E. nephrolithometry, CROES nomogram, and S-ReSC scoring system have recently been externally validated as effective predictors of stone-free rate after percutaneous nephrolithotomy.
Objetive: We describe herein the advantages of identifying the most accurate scale and propose its standardized use.
Materials and Methods: We analyzed 188 patients that underwent percutaneous nephrolithotomy for kidney stones within the time frame of October 2010 and July 2015 at a tertiary care referral center. Preoperative and postoperative non-contrast computed tomography scans were used in all patients to compare the four scoring systems, using the strict criterion of absolute absence of residual stone as the stone-free rate.
Results: The overall stone-free rate was 57.9%. All scoring systems presented a statistically significant stone-free rate (p‹0.001). Only the Guy’s stone score had no correlation with postoperative complications. The four scoring systems had similar accuracy, none of them were more predictive for stone-free rate than the other, and there was no significant difference in the areas under the curve between them (p=0.2). In addition, each scale had a correlation with operative time and length of hospital stay.
Conclusions: The four scales analyzed were excellent predictors for stone-free rate. They had similar receiver operating characteristic curves and areas under the curve, with no significant differences between them. However, the Guy’s stone score presented the best predictive capacity and the S-ReSC scoring system was the best method for predicting complications. It is up to the urologic community to decide which evidence-based scale is the most suitable. Meanwhile, the need for a standardized method continues to grow.


REFERENCES

  1. Fernstrom I, Johannson B. Percutaneous pyelolithotomy: a new extraction technique. Scand J Urol Nephrol. 1976;10:257-259.

  2. Preminger GM, Assimos DG, Lingeman JE, Nakada SY, Pearle MS, Wolf JS Jr. Chapter 1: AUA guideline on management of staghorn calculi: diagnosis and treatment recommendations. J Urol. 2005;173:1991-2000.

  3. Binbay M, Akman T, Ozgor F, Yazici O, Sari E, Erbin A, Kezer C, Sarilar O, Berberoglu Y, Muslumanoglu AY. Does pelvicaliceal system anatomy affect success of percutaneous nephrolithotomy? Urology 2011;78:733–737.

  4. Mishra S, Sabnis RB, Desai MR. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy monotherapy for staghorn: paradigm shift for ‘staghorn morphometry’ based clinical classification. Curr Opin Urol 2012;22: 148–153.

  5. Thomas K, Smith NC, Hegarty N, Glass JM. The Guy’s stone score-grading the complexity of percutaneous nephrolithotomy procedures. Urology 2011;78(2):277–281.

  6. Okhunov Z, Friedlander JI, George AK, Duty BD, Moreira DM, Srinivasan AK, Hillelsohn J, Smith AD, Okeke Z. S.T.O.N.E. nephrolithometry: novel surgical classification system for kidney calculi. Urology 2013;81(6):1154–1159.

  7. Smith A, Averch TD, Shahrour K, Opondo D, Daels FP, Labate G, Turna B, de la Rosette JJ. A nephrolithometric nomogram to predict treatment success of percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Urol 2013; 190: 149.

  8. Jeong CW, Jung J-W, Cha WH, Lee BK, Lee S, Jeong SJ, Hong SK, Byun SS, Lee SE. Seoul National University Renal Stone Complexity Score for Predicting Stone-Free Rate after Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy. 2013; PLoS ONE 8(6): e65888.

  9. Sfoungaristos S, Lorber A, Gofrit EN, Yutkin V, Landau EH, Pode D, Duvdevani M. External Validation and Predictive Accuracy Assessment of Guy's Stone Score as a Preoperative Tool for Estimating Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy Outcomes. J Endourol. 2015 Oct;29(10):1131-5.

  10. Mandal S, Goel A, Kathpalia R, Sankhwar S, Singh V, Sinha RJ, Singh BP, Dalela D. Prospective evaluation of complications using the modified Clavien grading system, and of success rates of percutaneous nephrolithotomy using Guy’s Stone Score: a single-center experience. Indian J Urol 2012; 28: 392

  11. Ingimarsson JP, Dagrosa LM, Hyams ES Pais VM Jr. External validation of a preoperative renal stone grading system: reproducibility and inter-rater concordance of the Guy’s stone score using preoperative computed tomography and rigorous postoperative stone-free criteria. Urology 2014; 83: 45.

  12. Okhunov Z, Moreira D, George A. Multicenter validation of S.T.O.N.E. nephrolithometry. J Urol, suppl., 2014; 191: e839, abstract PD32-09.

  13. Vicentini FC, Marchini GS, Mazzucchi E, Claro JF, Srougi M. Utility of the Guy’s stone score based on computed tomographic scan findings for predicting percutaneous nephrolithotomy outcomes. Urology 2014;83(6):1248–1253

  14. Okhunov Z, Helmy M, Perez-Lansac A, Menhadji A, Bucur P, Kolla SB, Cho JS, Osann K, Lusch A, Landman J. Interobserver reliability and reproducibility of S.T.O.N.E. nephrolithometry for renal calculi. J Endourol 2013; 27(10):1303–1306

  15. Choo MS, Jeong CW, Jung JH, Lee SB, Jeong H, Son H, Kim HH, Oh SJ, Cho SY. External Validation and Evaluation of Reliability and Validity of the S-ReSC Scoring System to Predict Stone-Free Status after Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy. 2014;PLoS ONE 9(1): e83628.

  16. Labadie K, Okhunov Z, Akhavein A, Moreira DM, Moreno- Palacios J, Del Junco M, Okeke Z, Bird V, Smith AD, Landman J. Evaluation and comparison of urolithiasis scoring systems used in percutaneous kidney stone surgery. J Urol 2015;193:154–159.

  17. Sfoungaristos S, Gofrit ON, Yutkin V, Landau EH, Pode D, Duvdevani M. External validation of CROES nephrolithometry as a preoperative predictive system for percutaneous nephrolithotomy outcomes. J Urol. 2016 Feb; 195 (2): 372-6.

  18. Shahrour W, Andonian S. Ambulatory percutaneous nephrolithotomy: initial series. Urology 2010;76:1288–1292.

  19. Li R, Louie MK, Lee HJ, Osann K, Pick DL, Santos R, Mc- Dougall EM, Clayman RV. Prospective randomized trial of three different methods of nephrostomy tract closure after percutaneous nephrolithotripsy. BJU Int 2011; 107: 1660.

  20. Tiselius HG, Andersson A. Stone burden in an average Swedish population of stone formers requiring active stone removal: how can the stone size be estimated in the clinical routine? Eur Urol 2003;43:275.

  21. de la Rosette JJ, Opondo D, Daels FP, Giusti G, Serrano A, Kandasami SV, Wolf JS Jr, Grabe M, Gravas S. Categorisation of complications and validation of the Clavien score for percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Eur Urol 2012;62(2):246–255

  22. Tefekli A, Ali-Karadag M, Tepeler K, Sari E, Berberoglu Y, Baykal M, Sarilar O, Muslumanoglu A. Classification of percutaneous nephrolithotomy complications using the modified Clavien grading system: looking for a standard. Eur Urol. 2008;53:184-190

  23. Hyams ES, Bruhn A, Lipkin M, Shah O. Heterogeneity in the reporting of disease characteristics and treatment outcomes in studies evaluating treatments for nephrolithiasis. J Endourol 2010;24: 1411.

  24. Opondo D, Gravas S, Joyce A, Pearle M, Matsuda T, Sun YH, Assimos D, Denstedt J, de la Rosette J. Standardization of patient outcomes reporting in percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Endourol 2014; 28:767.

  25. Rassweiler JJ, Renner C, Eisenberger F. The management of complex renal stones. BJU Int. 2000;86:919-928.

  26. Raman JD, Bagrodia A, Gupta A, Bensalah K, Cadeddu JA, Lotan Y, Pearle MS. Natural history of residual fragments following percutaneous nephrostolithotomy. J Urol. 2009;181:1163-8.

  27. Ganpule A, Desai M. Fate of residual stones after percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a critical analysis. J Endourol. 2009;23:399-403.

  28. Heidenreich A, Desgrandschamps F, Terrier F. Modern approach of diagnosis and management of acute flank pain: review of all imaging modalities. Eur Urol. 2002;41:351-362.

  29. Gokce MI, Ozden E, Suer E, Gulpinar B, Gulpınar O, Tangal S. Comparison of imaging modalities for detection of residual fragments and prediction of stone related events following percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Int Braz J Urol. 2015; 41: 86-90.

  30. Altunrende F, Tefekli A, Stein RJ, Autorino R, Yuruk E, Laydner H, Binbay M, Muslumanoglu AY. Clinically insignificant residual fragments after percutaneous nephrolithotomy: medium-term follow-up. J Endourol. 2011;25(6):941-5.

  31. Noureldin YA, Elkoushy MA, Andonian S. Which is better? Guy's versus S.T.O.N.E. nephrolithometry scoring systems in predicting stone-free status post-percutaneous nephrolithotomy. World J Urol. 2015;33(11):1821-5.

  32. Bozkurt IH, Aydogdu O, Yonguc T, Yarimoglu S, Sen V, Gunlusoy B, Degirmenci T. Comparison of Guy and Clinical Research Office of the Endourological Society Nephrolithometry Scoring Systems for Predicting Stone- Free Status and Complication Rates After Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy: A Single Center Study with 437 Cases J Endourol. 2015;29(9):1006-10.

  33. Zhu Z, Wang S, Xi Q, Bai J, Yu X, Liu J. Logistic regression model for predicting stone-free rate after minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy.Urology. 2011;78:32- 36.

  34. Desai M, De Lisa A, Turna B, Rioja J, Walfridsson H, D'Addessi A, Wong C. The clinical research office of the endourological society percutaneous nephrolithotomy global study: staghorn versus nonstaghorn stones. J Endourol 2011;25: 1263–1268.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com