- Email: [email protected]
External validation and comparison of the scoring systems (S.T.O.N.E, GUY, CROES, S-ReSC) for predicting percutaneous nephrolithotomy outcomes: A single center experience with 506 cases
32nd Annual EAU Congress, 24-28 March 2017, London, United Kingdom
546
External validation and comparison of the scoring systems (S.T.O.N.E, GUY, CROES, S-ReSC) for predicting percutaneous nephrolithotomy outcomes: A single center experience with 506 cases Eur Urol Suppl 2017; 16(3);e943
Yarımoglu S., Bozkurt I.H., Aydogdu O., Yonguc T., Gunlusoy B., Eker A., Degirmenci T. Izmir Bozyaka Training and Research Hospital, Dept. of Urology, Izmir, Turkey INTRODUCTION & OBJECTIVES: We aimed to validate and compare the stone scoring systems (S.T.O.N.E, GUY, CROES, S-ReSC) used to predict postoperative stone-free status and complications after percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL).
MATERIAL & METHODS: A total of 567 patients who underwent PCNL for renal stones between January 2012 and August 2015 were included in the recent retrospective study. Sixty one patients who had not preoperative CT were excluded from the study. Guy ,S.T.O.N.E., S-ReSC and CROES nephrolithometry scores were calculated for each patient, and their potential association with stone-free status, operative and fluoroscopy time, and length of hospital stay (LOS) were evaluated. Postoperative complications were graded according to the modified Clavien classification, and the correlation of scoring systems with postoperative complications was also investigated.
RESULTS: The mean CROES, S.T.O.N.E, Guy and S-ReSC scores were 203.7±59.8, 7.52±1.8, 2.08±0.9 and 3.35±2.2 respectively. The overall stone-free rate was 77.9%. All scoring systems were significantly correlated with stone-free status and operation time. While GSS, S.T.O.N.E and CROES systems were significantly correlated with complication rates (CR), S-ReSC score failed to predict CR. All scoring systems except S.T.O.N.E were significantly correlated with LOS. CROES and S-ReSC scores were predictive of estimated blood loss while GSS (Guy’s stone score) and S.T.O.N.E failed to predict estimated blood loss.
Eur Urol Suppl 2017; 16(3);e943
32nd Annual EAU Congress, 24-28 March 2017, London, United Kingdom
546
External validation and comparison of the scoring systems (S.T.O.N.E, GUY, CROES, S-ReSC) for predicting percutaneous nephrolithotomy outcomes: A single center experience with 506 cases Eur Urol Suppl 2017; 16(3);e944
Table 1. Patients’ demographics and clinical data n/n %/% Gender (Male/Female) 333/173 65.8/34.2 Side (Left/Right) 260/246 48.9/51.4 Access Location 321/185 63.4/36.5 (Subcostal/Intercostal) Mean ± SD Range Age (years) 48.5±12.7 17-82 2 BMI (kg/m ) 26.68±4.8 16-43 2 Stone burden (mm ) 502.01±517.5 55-2869 Operative time (min) 102.06±39.4 25-300 Fluoroscopi time (sec) 78.67±49.7 3-410 Length of hospital 3.84±2.1 2-20 stay (days) S.T.O.N.E score 7.52±1.8 5-13 CROES score 3.19±0.8 1-4 Guy score 2.08±0.9 1-4 S-ReSC score 3.35±2.2 1-9 n % Renal anomaly 34 6.7 Stone-free rate 394/506 77.9 Estimated blood loss 194 38.3 (>250cc) SD: Standart deviation, BMI: Body mass index, CROES= Clinical Research Office of the Endourological Society, S-ReSC : Seoul National University Renal Stone Complexity
Eur Urol Suppl 2017; 16(3);e944
32nd Annual EAU Congress, 24-28 March 2017, London, United Kingdom
546
External validation and comparison of the scoring systems (S.T.O.N.E, GUY, CROES, S-ReSC) for predicting percutaneous nephrolithotomy outcomes: A single center experience with 506 cases Eur Urol Suppl 2017; 16(3);e945
Table 2. Correlation of patients’ characteristics and scoring systems Complicatio Stone free Stone Operative n Burden time * ** ** Guy Correlation .103 .308 .513 .323** Coefficient Sig. .021 .000 .000 .000 (2-tailed) N 506 506 506 506 ** ** ** CROES Correlation -.140 -.263 -.671 -.329** Coefficient Sig. .002 .000 .000 .000 (2-tailed) N 506 506 506 506 ** ** ** S.T.O.N.E. Correlation .127 .221 .757 .330** Coefficient Sig. .004 .000 .000 .000 (2-tailed) N 506 506 506 506 ** ** S-ReSC Correlation .082 .361 .416 .306** Coefficient Sig. .064 .000 .000 .000 (2-tailed) N 506 506 506 506
EBL
LOS
.038
.099*
.395
.026
506 -.128*
506 -.099*
.004
.026
506 .086
506 .087
.053
.051
506 .098*
506 .105*
.027
.018
506
506
CONCLUSIONS: Recent study demonstrated that S.T.O.N.E, GUY, CROES and S-ReSC scoring systems could effectively predict postoperative stone-free status. Although S-ReSC scoring system failed to predict CR, the rest three scoring systems were significantly correlated with postoperative CR.
Eur Urol Suppl 2017; 16(3);e945 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
546
External validation and comparison of the scoring systems (S.T.O.N.E, GUY, CROES, S-ReSC) for predicting percutaneous nephrolithotomy outcomes: A single center experience with 506 cases Eur Urol Suppl 2017; 16(3);e943
Yarımoglu S., Bozkurt I.H., Aydogdu O., Yonguc T., Gunlusoy B., Eker A., Degirmenci T. Izmir Bozyaka Training and Research Hospital, Dept. of Urology, Izmir, Turkey INTRODUCTION & OBJECTIVES: We aimed to validate and compare the stone scoring systems (S.T.O.N.E, GUY, CROES, S-ReSC) used to predict postoperative stone-free status and complications after percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL).
MATERIAL & METHODS: A total of 567 patients who underwent PCNL for renal stones between January 2012 and August 2015 were included in the recent retrospective study. Sixty one patients who had not preoperative CT were excluded from the study. Guy ,S.T.O.N.E., S-ReSC and CROES nephrolithometry scores were calculated for each patient, and their potential association with stone-free status, operative and fluoroscopy time, and length of hospital stay (LOS) were evaluated. Postoperative complications were graded according to the modified Clavien classification, and the correlation of scoring systems with postoperative complications was also investigated.
RESULTS: The mean CROES, S.T.O.N.E, Guy and S-ReSC scores were 203.7±59.8, 7.52±1.8, 2.08±0.9 and 3.35±2.2 respectively. The overall stone-free rate was 77.9%. All scoring systems were significantly correlated with stone-free status and operation time. While GSS, S.T.O.N.E and CROES systems were significantly correlated with complication rates (CR), S-ReSC score failed to predict CR. All scoring systems except S.T.O.N.E were significantly correlated with LOS. CROES and S-ReSC scores were predictive of estimated blood loss while GSS (Guy’s stone score) and S.T.O.N.E failed to predict estimated blood loss.
Eur Urol Suppl 2017; 16(3);e943
32nd Annual EAU Congress, 24-28 March 2017, London, United Kingdom
546
External validation and comparison of the scoring systems (S.T.O.N.E, GUY, CROES, S-ReSC) for predicting percutaneous nephrolithotomy outcomes: A single center experience with 506 cases Eur Urol Suppl 2017; 16(3);e944
Table 1. Patients’ demographics and clinical data n/n %/% Gender (Male/Female) 333/173 65.8/34.2 Side (Left/Right) 260/246 48.9/51.4 Access Location 321/185 63.4/36.5 (Subcostal/Intercostal) Mean ± SD Range Age (years) 48.5±12.7 17-82 2 BMI (kg/m ) 26.68±4.8 16-43 2 Stone burden (mm ) 502.01±517.5 55-2869 Operative time (min) 102.06±39.4 25-300 Fluoroscopi time (sec) 78.67±49.7 3-410 Length of hospital 3.84±2.1 2-20 stay (days) S.T.O.N.E score 7.52±1.8 5-13 CROES score 3.19±0.8 1-4 Guy score 2.08±0.9 1-4 S-ReSC score 3.35±2.2 1-9 n % Renal anomaly 34 6.7 Stone-free rate 394/506 77.9 Estimated blood loss 194 38.3 (>250cc) SD: Standart deviation, BMI: Body mass index, CROES= Clinical Research Office of the Endourological Society, S-ReSC : Seoul National University Renal Stone Complexity
Eur Urol Suppl 2017; 16(3);e944
32nd Annual EAU Congress, 24-28 March 2017, London, United Kingdom
546
External validation and comparison of the scoring systems (S.T.O.N.E, GUY, CROES, S-ReSC) for predicting percutaneous nephrolithotomy outcomes: A single center experience with 506 cases Eur Urol Suppl 2017; 16(3);e945
Table 2. Correlation of patients’ characteristics and scoring systems Complicatio Stone free Stone Operative n Burden time * ** ** Guy Correlation .103 .308 .513 .323** Coefficient Sig. .021 .000 .000 .000 (2-tailed) N 506 506 506 506 ** ** ** CROES Correlation -.140 -.263 -.671 -.329** Coefficient Sig. .002 .000 .000 .000 (2-tailed) N 506 506 506 506 ** ** ** S.T.O.N.E. Correlation .127 .221 .757 .330** Coefficient Sig. .004 .000 .000 .000 (2-tailed) N 506 506 506 506 ** ** S-ReSC Correlation .082 .361 .416 .306** Coefficient Sig. .064 .000 .000 .000 (2-tailed) N 506 506 506 506
EBL
LOS
.038
.099*
.395
.026
506 -.128*
506 -.099*
.004
.026
506 .086
506 .087
.053
.051
506 .098*
506 .105*
.027
.018
506
506
CONCLUSIONS: Recent study demonstrated that S.T.O.N.E, GUY, CROES and S-ReSC scoring systems could effectively predict postoperative stone-free status. Although S-ReSC scoring system failed to predict CR, the rest three scoring systems were significantly correlated with postoperative CR.
Eur Urol Suppl 2017; 16(3);e945 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)