Yasser A Noureldin1,2, Mohamed A Elkoushy1,3, Sero Andonian4. 1. Division of Urology, McGill University Health Centre, 687 Pine Ave. West, Suite S6.92, Montreal, QC, H3A 1A1, Canada. 2. Department of Urology, Benha University Hospital, Benha University, Benha, Egypt. 3. Department of Urology, Suez Canal University, Ismailia, Egypt. 4. Division of Urology, McGill University Health Centre, 687 Pine Ave. West, Suite S6.92, Montreal, QC, H3A 1A1, Canada. sero.andonian@muhc.mcgill.ca.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study was to compare the accuracy of the Guy's and S.T.O.N.E. scoring systems in predicting percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) outcomes. METHODS: After obtaining ethics approval, medical records of patients undergoing PCNL between 2009 and 2013 at a tertiary stone center were retrospectively reviewed. Guy's and S.T.O.N.E. scoring systems were calculated. Regression analysis and ROC curves were performed. RESULTS: A total of 185 PCNLs were reviewed. The overall stone-free rate was 71.9 % with a complication rate of 16.2 %. When compared to patients with residual fragments, stone-free patients had significantly lower Guy's grade (2.7 vs. 2; p < 0.001) and S.T.O.N.E. score (8.3 vs. 7.4; p = 0.004). Logistic regression analysis showed that both Guy's and S.T.O.N.E. systems were significantly associated with stone-free status, OR 0.4 (p < 0.001), and OR 0.7 (p = 0.001), respectively. Furthermore, both scoring systems were significantly associated with the estimated blood loss (p = 0.01 and p = 0.005). There was good correlation between both scoring systems and operative time (r = 0.3, p < 0.001 and r = 0.4, p < 0.001) and length of hospital stay (r = 0.2, p = 0.001 and r = 0.3, p < 0.001). However, there were no significant associations between both scoring systems and complications (p = 0.7 and p = 0.6). There was no significant difference in the areas under the curves for the Guy's and S.T.O.N.E. scoring systems (0.74 [95 % CI 0.66-0.82] vs. 0.63 [95 % CI 0.54-0.72]; p = 0.06). CONCLUSION: Both Guy's and S.T.O.N.E scoring systems have comparable accuracies in predicting post-PCNL stone-free status. Other factors not included in either scoring system may need to be incorporated in the future to increase their accuracy.
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study was to compare the accuracy of the Guy's and S.T.O.N.E. scoring systems in predicting percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) outcomes. METHODS: After obtaining ethics approval, medical records of patients undergoing PCNL between 2009 and 2013 at a tertiary stone center were retrospectively reviewed. Guy's and S.T.O.N.E. scoring systems were calculated. Regression analysis and ROC curves were performed. RESULTS: A total of 185 PCNLs were reviewed. The overall stone-free rate was 71.9 % with a complication rate of 16.2 %. When compared to patients with residual fragments, stone-free patients had significantly lower Guy's grade (2.7 vs. 2; p < 0.001) and S.T.O.N.E. score (8.3 vs. 7.4; p = 0.004). Logistic regression analysis showed that both Guy's and S.T.O.N.E. systems were significantly associated with stone-free status, OR 0.4 (p < 0.001), and OR 0.7 (p = 0.001), respectively. Furthermore, both scoring systems were significantly associated with the estimated blood loss (p = 0.01 and p = 0.005). There was good correlation between both scoring systems and operative time (r = 0.3, p < 0.001 and r = 0.4, p < 0.001) and length of hospital stay (r = 0.2, p = 0.001 and r = 0.3, p < 0.001). However, there were no significant associations between both scoring systems and complications (p = 0.7 and p = 0.6). There was no significant difference in the areas under the curves for the Guy's and S.T.O.N.E. scoring systems (0.74 [95 % CI 0.66-0.82] vs. 0.63 [95 % CI 0.54-0.72]; p = 0.06). CONCLUSION: Both Guy's and S.T.O.N.E scoring systems have comparable accuracies in predicting post-PCNL stone-free status. Other factors not included in either scoring system may need to be incorporated in the future to increase their accuracy.
Authors: Glenn M Preminger; Dean G Assimos; James E Lingeman; Stephen Y Nakada; Margaret S Pearle; J Stuart Wolf Journal: J Urol Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Fabio C Vicentini; Giovanni Scala Marchini; Eduardo Mazzucchi; Joaquim F A Claro; Miguel Srougi Journal: Urology Date: 2014-03-05 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Dedan Opondo; Stavros Gravas; Andrian Joyce; Margaret Pearle; Tadashi Matsuda; Ying-Hao Sun; Dean Assimos; John Denstedt; Jean de la Rosette Journal: J Endourol Date: 2014-04-16 Impact factor: 2.942
Authors: Zhamshid Okhunov; Justin I Friedlander; Arvin K George; Brian D Duty; Daniel M Moreira; Arun K Srinivasan; Joel Hillelsohn; Arthur D Smith; Zeph Okeke Journal: Urology Date: 2013-03-26 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Jean J M C H de la Rosette; Dedan Opondo; Francisco P J Daels; Guido Giusti; Alvaro Serrano; Sangam V Kandasami; J Stuart Wolf; Magnus Grabe; Stavros Gravas Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2012-04-04 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Ahmed M Harraz; Yasser Osman; Ahmed R El-Nahas; Amr A Elsawy; Islam Fakhreldin; Osama Mahmoud; Ahmed El-Assmy; Ahmed A Shokeir Journal: World J Urol Date: 2016-12-24 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Ramazan Kocaaslan; Abdulkadir Tepeler; Ibrahim Buldu; Muhammed Tosun; Mehmet Mazhar Utangac; Tolga Karakan; Ekrem Ozyuvali; Namik Kemal Hatipoglu; Ali Unsal; Kemal Sarica Journal: Urolithiasis Date: 2016-07-12 Impact factor: 3.436
Authors: Ahmed R El-Nahas; Mohamed A Nabeeh; Mahmoud Laymon; Khaled Z Sheir; Hamdy A El-Kappany; Yasser Osman Journal: Urolithiasis Date: 2020-08-01 Impact factor: 3.436