Shicong Lai1, Binbin Jiao2, Zhaoqiang Jiang3, Jianyong Liu1, Samuel Seery4, Xin Chen5, Bin Jin5, Xiaomeng Ma6, Ming Liu7, Jianye Wang8. 1. Department of Urology, Beijing Hospital; National Center of Gerontology; Institute of Geriatric Medicine, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, 100730, China; Graduate School of Peking Union Medical College and Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, 100730, China. 2. Graduate School of Peking Union Medical College and Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, 100730, China; Department of Urology, China-Japan Friendship Hospital, Beijing, 100029, China. 3. Department of Urology, Henan Provincial People's Hospital, People's Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, Henan, 450003, China. 4. School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, 100730, China. 5. Department of Urology, Beijing Hospital; National Center of Gerontology; Institute of Geriatric Medicine, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, 100730, China. 6. Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada. 7. Department of Urology, Beijing Hospital; National Center of Gerontology; Institute of Geriatric Medicine, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, 100730, China; Graduate School of Peking Union Medical College and Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, 100730, China. Electronic address: liumingbjh@126.com. 8. Department of Urology, Beijing Hospital; National Center of Gerontology; Institute of Geriatric Medicine, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, 100730, China; Graduate School of Peking Union Medical College and Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, 100730, China. Electronic address: wangjy@bjhmoh.cn.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the predictive performance of five previously described scoring systems (i.e., S.T.O.N.E., Guy's, Clinical Research Office of the Endourological Society (CROES), the Seoul National University Renal Stone Complexity (S-RESC) and the new Stone Kidney Size (SKS) score) for postoperative outcomes regarding stone-free rate (SFR) and complications in adult patients. METHODS: Data from 349 patients who underwent percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) in three urology departments were analyzed. SKS, S.T.O.N.E., S-ReSC, CROES and Guy's nephrolithometry scoring systems were used to retrospectively calculate predictions for each patient. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to evaluate factors associated with SFR and complication rates. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were generated and areas under curves (AUC) were compared to identify the method with the highest predictive value. RESULTS: Median SKS, S.T.O.N.E., S-ReSC, CROES and Guy's scores were 4, 7, 3, 170.8 and 2, respectively. Overall, SFR was 67.0% (234/349) with a complications rate of 36.7% (128/349). AUCs of each method for predicting stone-free status, highlighted reasonable predictive capabilities with 0.709, 0.806, 0 0.869, 0.207, and 0.735, respectively; however, the S-ReSC scoring system had the best discriminative performance. According to multivariate logistic regression and AUC results, none were effectively capable of predicting complications. CONCLUSIONS: All scoring systems correlated significantly with stone-free status; although, S-ReSC appears to have the greatest predictive ability. This method is also relatively easy to implement and highly reproducible. However, none of the methods analyzed are able to accurately predict postoperative complications.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the predictive performance of five previously described scoring systems (i.e., S.T.O.N.E., Guy's, Clinical Research Office of the Endourological Society (CROES), the Seoul National University Renal Stone Complexity (S-RESC) and the new Stone Kidney Size (SKS) score) for postoperative outcomes regarding stone-free rate (SFR) and complications in adult patients. METHODS: Data from 349 patients who underwent percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) in three urology departments were analyzed. SKS, S.T.O.N.E., S-ReSC, CROES and Guy's nephrolithometry scoring systems were used to retrospectively calculate predictions for each patient. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to evaluate factors associated with SFR and complication rates. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were generated and areas under curves (AUC) were compared to identify the method with the highest predictive value. RESULTS: Median SKS, S.T.O.N.E., S-ReSC, CROES and Guy's scores were 4, 7, 3, 170.8 and 2, respectively. Overall, SFR was 67.0% (234/349) with a complications rate of 36.7% (128/349). AUCs of each method for predicting stone-free status, highlighted reasonable predictive capabilities with 0.709, 0.806, 0 0.869, 0.207, and 0.735, respectively; however, the S-ReSC scoring system had the best discriminative performance. According to multivariate logistic regression and AUC results, none were effectively capable of predicting complications. CONCLUSIONS: All scoring systems correlated significantly with stone-free status; although, S-ReSC appears to have the greatest predictive ability. This method is also relatively easy to implement and highly reproducible. However, none of the methods analyzed are able to accurately predict postoperative complications.