Yasser A Noureldin1, Mohamed A Elkoushy2, Sero Andonian3. 1. Division of Urology, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal QC; ; Department of Urology, Benha University, Benha, Egypt; 2. Division of Urology, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal QC; ; Department of Urology, Suez Canal University, Ismailia, Egypt. 3. Division of Urology, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal QC;
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: We perform external validation of the S.T.O.N.E. nephrolithometry scoring system for the preoperative assessment of percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) outcomes. METHODS: After obtaining institutional review board approval, all PCNLs performed from 2009 to 2013 at a tertiary referral centre were reviewed. The S.T.O.N.E. score was calculated and correlated with stone-free status, estimated blood loss (EBL), operative time, length of hospital stay (LOS), and postoperative complications. RESULTS: A total of 155 PCNLs were included, with 100 (64.5%) males and 55 (35.5%) females. The mean age was 54.9 ± 1.2 years (range: 17-85), with a mean body mass index of 26.9 ± 0.5 kg/m(2) (range: 17.2-51). The mean S.T.O.N.E. score was 7.67 ± 0.1 (range: 5-12), with a mean stone size of 609.8 ± 48.4 mm(2) (range: 250-4030), a mean Hounsfield unit of 887.7 ± 25.3 (range: 222-1766), a mean tract length of 97.3 ± 1.9 mm (range: 53-175), a mean operative time of 100.1 ± 2.8 min (range: 60-240), and a mean LOS of 4.2 ± 0.3 days (range: 1-18). The overall stone-free rate after the primary procedure was 71.6%. The S.T.O.N.E. score significantly affected stone-free status (p = 0.001) and EBL (p = 0.003). There was significant correlation between the S.T.O.N.E. score and operative time (r = 0.4; p < 0.001) and LOS (r = 0.3; p = 0.001). Therefore, the higher the S.T.O.N.E. score, the longer the operative time, the higher the EBL, the longer the LOS, and the lower the chance of being stone-free. The overall complication rate after the primary procedure was 15.5%, which did not correlate with the S.T.O.N.E. score (p = 0.9). CONCLUSION: Although this study externally validates the S.T.O.N.E. scoring system, its accuracy is comparable to stone size and number of involved calyces in predicting stone-free status post-PCNL.
INTRODUCTION: We perform external validation of the S.T.O.N.E. nephrolithometry scoring system for the preoperative assessment of percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) outcomes. METHODS: After obtaining institutional review board approval, all PCNLs performed from 2009 to 2013 at a tertiary referral centre were reviewed. The S.T.O.N.E. score was calculated and correlated with stone-free status, estimated blood loss (EBL), operative time, length of hospital stay (LOS), and postoperative complications. RESULTS: A total of 155 PCNLs were included, with 100 (64.5%) males and 55 (35.5%) females. The mean age was 54.9 ± 1.2 years (range: 17-85), with a mean body mass index of 26.9 ± 0.5 kg/m(2) (range: 17.2-51). The mean S.T.O.N.E. score was 7.67 ± 0.1 (range: 5-12), with a mean stone size of 609.8 ± 48.4 mm(2) (range: 250-4030), a mean Hounsfield unit of 887.7 ± 25.3 (range: 222-1766), a mean tract length of 97.3 ± 1.9 mm (range: 53-175), a mean operative time of 100.1 ± 2.8 min (range: 60-240), and a mean LOS of 4.2 ± 0.3 days (range: 1-18). The overall stone-free rate after the primary procedure was 71.6%. The S.T.O.N.E. score significantly affected stone-free status (p = 0.001) and EBL (p = 0.003). There was significant correlation between the S.T.O.N.E. score and operative time (r = 0.4; p < 0.001) and LOS (r = 0.3; p = 0.001). Therefore, the higher the S.T.O.N.E. score, the longer the operative time, the higher the EBL, the longer the LOS, and the lower the chance of being stone-free. The overall complication rate after the primary procedure was 15.5%, which did not correlate with the S.T.O.N.E. score (p = 0.9). CONCLUSION: Although this study externally validates the S.T.O.N.E. scoring system, its accuracy is comparable to stone size and number of involved calyces in predicting stone-free status post-PCNL.
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: Khurshid R Ghani; Jesse D Sammon; Naeem Bhojani; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Maxine Sun; Shyam Sukumar; Ray Littleton; James O Peabody; Mani Menon; Quoc-Dien Trinh Journal: J Urol Date: 2013-02-19 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Kevin Labadie; Zhamshid Okhunov; Arash Akhavein; Daniel M Moreira; Jorge Moreno-Palacios; Michael Del Junco; Zeph Okeke; Vincent Bird; Arthur D Smith; Jaime Landman Journal: J Urol Date: 2014-08-01 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: 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 de la Rosette; Dean Assimos; Mahesh Desai; Jorge Gutierrez; James Lingeman; Roberto Scarpa; Ahmet Tefekli Journal: J Endourol Date: 2011-01 Impact factor: 2.942
Authors: Ahmed M El-Assmy; Ahmed A Shokeir; Ahmed R El-Nahas; Ahmed M Shoma; Ibrahim Eraky; Mahmoud R El-Kenawy; Hamdy A El-Kappany Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2006-12-04 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Jeffrey J Leow; Anne-Sophie Valiquette; Benjamin I Chung; Steven L Chang; Quoc-Dien Trinh; Rus Korets; Naeem Bhojani Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2018-06-19 Impact factor: 1.862