medigraphic.com
Organo Oficial de la Sociedad Mexicana de Urología

2023, Number 3

<< Back Next >>

Rev Mex Urol 2023; 83 (3)

Evaluation of the STONE nephrolithometry score in predicting surgical outcomes of percutaneous nephrolithotomy: results of a prospective study at a university hospital

Choudhary A, Jayadeva-Reddy S, Shetty S, Sourabh-Reddy B, Singh A, Irappa-Wali M

Language: English
References: 19
Page: 1-13
PDF size: 230.24 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Objective: One of the popular advances in percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) includes nephrolithometry classification systems. It enables better patient counseling, surgery planning, outcome evaluation, and uniform academic reporting. The STONE nephrolithometry is a validated quantitative scoring system that is undervalued in clinical settings, and this study evaluates the scoring system’s ability to predict the outcome of PCNL surgery.
Methodology: From January 2017 to June 2018, a total of 102 PCNL patients were studied prospectively. The STONE score was derived from a preoperative non-contrast computed tomography (NCCT) scan which was used to evaluate stone-free status at 4 weeks followup.
Results: The STONE nephrolithometry scoring system predicted stone-free rate (SFR) following PCNL surgery with an accuracy of 88%. The statistical cut off level of the STONE score of 8 was superior for predicting SFR. Individual variables such as stone size, degree of pelvicalyceal obstruction, number of calyceal involvement, and stone density were found to have a significant correlation with STONE score, although there was no statistically significant correlation between SFR and tract length (p=0.81). The score was divided into three categories: low complexity score 5-6 (SFR-58.7%), moderate complexity score 7-8 (SFR-40%), and high complexity score 9-13 (SFR- 1.2%). The STONE score had excellent inter-observer reliability and reproducibility (p=<0.001).
Conclusions: The STONE score was a simple and easy to apply tool for predicting the stone complexity and stone clearance after PCNL. The STONE score had no statistically significant correlation with postoperative complications. Furthermore, it demonstrated high inter-observer reliability and reproducibility.


REFERENCES

  1. Okhunov Z, Friedlander JI, George AK,Duty BD, Moreira DM, Srinivasan AK, et al.S.T.O.N.E. nephrolithometry: novel surgicalclassification system for kidney calculi.Urology. 2013;81(6):1154–9. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2012.10.083

  2. Okhunov Z, Moreira D, George A, Akhavein A,Elsamra S, Duty B, et al. Pd32-09 multicentervalidation of s.t.o.n.e. nephrolithometry. Journalof Urology. 2014;191(4S):e839–e839. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2014.02.2280

  3. Vernez SL, Okhunov Z, Motamedinia P, Bird V,Okeke Z, Smith A. Nephrolithometric ScoringSystems to Predict Outcomes of PercutaneousNephrolithotomy. Rev Urol. 2016;18(1):15–27.

  4. Ozgor F, Yanaral F, Savun M, Ozdemir H, SarilarO, Binbay M. Comparison of STONE, CROESand Guy’s nephrolithometry scoring systems forpredicting stone-free status and complicationrates after percutaneous nephrolithotomy inobese patients. Urolithiasis. 2018;46(5):471–7.doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-017-1003-0

  5. Zhu Z, Wang S, Xi Q, Bai J, Yu X, Liu J. Logisticregression model for predicting stone-freerate after minimally invasive percutaneousnephrolithotomy. Urology. 2011;78(1):32–6. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2010.10.034

  6. Binbay M, Akman T, Ozgor F, Yazici O, Sari E,Erbin A, et al. Does pelvicaliceal system anatomyaffect success of percutaneous nephrolithotomy?Urology. 2011;78(4):733–7. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2011.03.058

  7. Anastasiadis A, Onal B, Modi P, Turna B,Duvdevani M, Timoney A, et al. Impact ofstone density on outcomes in percutaneousnephrolithotomy (PCNL): an analysis of theclinical research office of the endourologicalsociety (CROES) pcnl global study database.Scand J Urol. 2013;47(6):509–14. doi: https://doi.org/10.3109/21681805.2013.803261

  8. Tefekli A, Karadag MA, Tepeler K, Sari E,Berberoglu Y, Baykal M, et al. Classification ofPercutaneous Nephrolithotomy ComplicationsUsing the Modified Clavien Grading System:Looking for a Standard. European Urology.2008;53(1):184–90. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2007.06.049

  9. Shoaib M, Bangash M, Salam B, Ather MH. TheCorrelation Between STONE NephrolithometryScore and Hemoglobin Drop in PatientsUndergoing Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy.Cureus. 2020;12(11):e11430. doi: https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.11430

  10. Yarimoglu S, Bozkurt IH, Aydogdu O,Yonguc T, Sefik E, Topcu YK, et al. Externalvalidation and comparison of the scoringsystems (S.T.O.N.E, GUY, CROES, S-ReSC)for predicting percutaneous nephrolithotomyoutcomes for staghorn stones: A single centerexperience with 160 cases. Kaohsiung J MedSci. 2017;33(10):516–22. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.kjms.2017.06.017

  11. Jiang K, Sun F, Zhu J, Luo G, Zhang P, BanY, et al. Evaluation of three stone-scoringsystems for predicting SFR and complicationsafter percutaneous nephrolithotomy: asystematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Urol.2019;19(1):57. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12894-019-0488-y

  12. Withington J, Armitage J, Finch W,Wiseman O, Glass J, Burgess N. Assessmentof Stone Complexity for PCNL: A SystematicReview of the Literature, How Best CanWe Record Stone Complexity in PCNL? JEndourol. 2016;30(1):13–23. doi: https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2015.0278

  13. Biswas K, Gupta SK, Tak GR, Ganpule AP,Sabnis RB, Desai MR. Comparison of STONEscore, Guy’s stone score and Clinical ResearchOffice of the Endourological Society (CROES)score as predictive tools for percutaneousnephrolithotomy outcome: a prospective study.BJU Int. 2020;126(4):494–501. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.15130

  14. Khan N, Nazim SM, Farhan M, Salam B, AtherMH. Validation of S.T.O.N.E nephrolithometryand Guy’s stone score for predicting surgicaloutcome after percutaneous nephrolithotomy.Urol Ann. 2020;12(4):324–30. doi: https://doi.org/10.4103/ua.ua_136_19

  15. Al Adl AM, Mohey A, Abdel Aal A, Abu-Elnasr HAF, El Karamany T, Noureldin YA.Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy OutcomesBased on S.T.O.N.E., GUY, CROES, and S-ReSCScoring Systems: The First Prospective Study.J Endourol. 2020;34(12):1223–8. doi: https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2019.0856

  16. Farhan M, Nazim SM, Salam B, AtherMH. Prospective evaluation of outcome ofpercutaneous nephrolithotomy using the‘STONE’ nephrolithometry score: A single-centreexperience. Arab J Urol. 2015;13(4):264–9. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aju.2015.07.006

  17. Noureldin YA, Elkoushy MA, AndonianS. External validation of the S.T.O.N.E.nephrolithometry scoring system. Can UrolAssoc J. 2015;9(5–6):190–5. doi: https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.2652

  18. Srivastava A, Yadav P, Madhavan K, SurekaSK, Singh UP, Kapoor R, et al. Inter-observervariability amongst surgeons and radiologists inassessment of Guy’s Stone Score and S.T.O.N.E.nephrolithometry score: A prospectiveevaluation. Arab J Urol. 2020;18(2):118–23. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/2090598x.2019.1703278

  19. Vicentini FC, Serzedello FR, Thomas K,Marchini GS, Torricelli FCM, Srougi M, et al.What is the quickest scoring system to predictpercutaneous nephrolithotomy outcomes? Acomparative study among S.T.O.N.E score,Guy’s Stone Ccore and CROES nomogram. IntBraz J Urol. 2017;43(6):1102–9. doi: https://doi.org/10.1590/s1677-5538.ibju.2016.0586




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com