• Arab journal of urology · Mar 2017

    How practical is the application of percutaneous nephrolithotomy scoring systems? Prospective study comparing Guy's Stone Score, S.T.O.N.E. score and the Clinical Research Office of the Endourological Society (CROES) nomogram.

    • Anurag Singla, Nikhil Khattar, Rishi Nayyar, Shibani Mehra, Hemant Goel, and Rajeev Sood.
    • Department of Urology, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER) and Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, Baba Kharak Singh Marg, New Delhi, Delhi, India.
    • Arab J Urol. 2017 Mar 1; 15 (1): 7-16.

    ObjectiveTo prospectively compare the Guy's Stone Score (GSS), S.T.O.N.E. [stone size (S), tract length (T), obstruction (O), number of involved calices (N), and essence or stone density (E)] score and the Clinical Research Office of the Endourological Society (CROES) nephrolithometric nomogram to predict percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) success rate and assess the correlation with perioperative complications.Patients And MethodsWe prospectively evaluated all consecutive PCNL patients at our institute between 1 November 2013 and 31 May 2015. The above scoring systems were applied to preoperative non-contrast computed tomography and the practical difficulties in such applications were noted. Perioperative complications and the stone-free rate (SFR) were also recorded. Receiver operating characteristic curves were drawn and the areas under curves were compared and appropriate statistical analysis done.ResultsIn all, 48 renal units were included in the study. The overall SFR was 62.2%. The presence of staghorn stones (β = 27.285, 95% confidence interval 1.19-625.35; P = 0.039) was the only significant variable associated with the residual stones on multivariate analysis. Stone-free patients had significantly lower median GSS (2 vs 4) and S.T.O.N.E. scores (6 vs 10) and higher median CROES scores (83% vs 63%) (all P < 0.001) compared to residual-stone patients. All scoring systems were significantly associated with SFR (all P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the areas under curves of the scoring systems (0.858, 0.923, and 0.931, respectively). Furthermore, all scoring systems had weak correlations with Clavien-Dindo classified complications (r = 0.29, P = 0.045; r = 0.40, P = 0.005 and r = -0.295, P = 0.04, respectively). We found no standardisation for the measurement of stone dimensions, tract length, Hounsfield units, and staghorn definition.ConclusionsAll scoring systems equally predicted SFR and had a weak correlation with Clavien-Dindo complications. Standardisation is needed for the variables in which they have been found deficient.

      Pubmed     Free full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?

    User can't be blank.

    Content can't be blank.

    Content is too short (minimum is 15 characters).

    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…