What is the quickest scoring system to predict percutaneous nephrolithotomy outcomes? A comparative study among STONE score, Guy's Stone Ccore and CROES nomogram
Carregando...
Citações na Scopus
22
Tipo de produção
article
Data de publicação
2017
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título do Volume
Editora
BRAZILIAN SOC UROL
Citação
INTERNATIONAL BRAZ J UROL, v.43, n.6, p.1102-1109, 2017
Resumo
Objective: To compare the application time and the capacity of the nomograms to predict the success of Guy's Stone Score (GSS), S.T.O.N.E. Nephrolithometry (STONE) and Clinical Research Office of the Endourological Society nephrolithometric nomogram (CROES) of percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL), evaluating the most efficient one for clinical use. Materials and Methods: We studied 48 patients who underwent PCNL by the same surgeon between 2010 and 2011. We calculated GSS, STONE and CROES based on preoperative non-contrast computed tomography (CT) images and clinical data. A single observer, blinded to the outcomes, reviewed all images and assigned scores. We compared the application time of each nomogram. We used an analysis of variance for repeated measures and multiple comparisons by the Tukey test. We compared the area under the ROC curve (AUC) of the three nomograms two by two to determine the most predictive scoring system. Results: The immediate success rate was 66.7% and complications occurred in 16.7% of cases. The average operative time was 122 minutes. Mean application time was significantly lower for the GSS (27.5 seconds) when compared to 300.6 seconds for STONE and 213.4 seconds for CROES (p< 0.001). There was no significant difference among the GSS (AUC= 0.653), STONE (AUC= 0.563) and CROES (AUC= 0.641) in the ability to predict immediate success of PCNL. Conclusions: All three nomograms showed similar ability to predict success of PCNL, however the GSS was the quickest to be applied, what is an important issue for routine clinical use when counseling patients who are candidates to PCNL.
Palavras-chave
Nomograms, Diagnosis, Calculi
Referências
- Akhavein A, 2015, UROLOGY, V85, P69, DOI 10.1016/j.urology.2014.09.010
- Bozkurt IH, 2015, J ENDOUROL, V29, P1006, DOI 10.1089/end.2015.0199
- de la Rosette JJMCH, 2012, EUR UROL, V62, P246, DOI 10.1016/j.eururo.2012.03.055
- Fwu CW, 2013, KIDNEY INT, V83, P479, DOI 10.1038/ki.2012.419
- Ingimarsson JP, 2014, UROLOGY, V83, P45, DOI 10.1016/j.urology.2013.09.008
- Jeong CW, 2013, PLOS ONE, V8, DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0065888
- Labadie K, 2015, J UROLOGY, V193, P154, DOI 10.1016/j.juro.2014.07.104
- Mandal S, 2012, INDIAN J UROL, V28, P392, DOI 10.4103/0970-1591.105749
- Moe OW, 2006, LANCET, V367, P333, DOI 10.1016/S0140-6736(06)68071-9
- Noureldin YA, 2015, WORLD J UROL, V33, P1821, DOI 10.1007/s00345-015-1508-5
- Okhunov Z, 2013, UROLOGY, V81, P1154, DOI 10.1016/j.urology.2012.10.083
- Preminger GM, 2007, J UROLOGY, V178, P2418, DOI 10.1016/j.juro.2007.09.107
- Sakhaee K, 2009, ADV CHRONIC KIDNEY D, V16, P30, DOI 10.1053/j.ackd.2008.10.004
- Sfoungaristos S, 2016, J UROLOGY, V195, P372, DOI 10.1016/j.juro.2015.08.079
- Sfoungaristos S, 2015, J ENDOUROL, V29, P1366, DOI 10.1089/end.2015.0397
- Sfoungaristos S, 2015, J ENDOUROL, V29, P1131, DOI 10.1089/end.2015.0273
- Smith A, 2013, J UROLOGY, V190, P149, DOI 10.1016/j.juro.2013.01.047
- Thomas K, 2011, UROLOGY, V78, P277, DOI 10.1016/j.urology.2010.12.026
- Tiselius HG, 2003, EUR UROL, V43, P275, DOI 10.1016/S0302-2838(03)00006-X
- Turk C, 2016, EUR UROL, V69, P475, DOI 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.07.041
- Vernez Simone L, 2016, Rev Urol, V18, P15
- Vicentini FC, 2014, UROLOGY, V83, P1248, DOI 10.1016/j.urology.2013.12.041
- Withington J, 2016, J ENDOUROL, V30, P13, DOI 10.1089/end.2015.0278
- Yuhico M P, 2008, Minerva Urol Nefrol, V60, P159