Evaluation of the STONE nephrolithometry score in predicting surgical outcomes of percutaneous nephrolithotomy: results of a prospective study at a university hospital
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.48193/revistamexicanadeurologa.v83i3.922Keywords:
STONE nephrolithometry score, surgical outcome, percutaneous nephrolithotomy, surgical complications, complicationsAbstract
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
Okhunov Z, Friedlander JI, George AK, Duty BD, Moreira DM, Srinivasan AK, et al. S.T.O.N.E. nephrolithometry: novel surgical classification system for kidney calculi. Urology. 2013;81(6):1154–9. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2012.10.083
Okhunov Z, Moreira D, George A, Akhavein A, Elsamra S, Duty B, et al. Pd32-09 multicenter validation of s.t.o.n.e. nephrolithometry. Journal of Urology. 2014;191(4S):e839–e839. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2014.02.2280
Vernez SL, Okhunov Z, Motamedinia P, Bird V, Okeke Z, Smith A. Nephrolithometric Scoring Systems to Predict Outcomes of Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy. Rev Urol. 2016;18(1):15–27.
Ozgor F, Yanaral F, Savun M, Ozdemir H, Sarilar O, Binbay M. Comparison of STONE, CROES and Guy’s nephrolithometry scoring systems for predicting stone-free status and complication rates after percutaneous nephrolithotomy in obese patients. Urolithiasis. 2018;46(5):471–7. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-017-1003-0
Zhu Z, Wang S, Xi Q, Bai J, Yu X, Liu J. Logistic regression model for predicting stone-free rate after minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Urology. 2011;78(1):32–6. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2010.10.034
Binbay M, Akman T, Ozgor F, Yazici O, Sari E, Erbin A, et al. Does pelvicaliceal system anatomy affect success of percutaneous nephrolithotomy? Urology. 2011;78(4):733–7. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2011.03.058
Anastasiadis A, Onal B, Modi P, Turna B, Duvdevani M, Timoney A, et al. Impact of stone density on outcomes in percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL): an analysis of the clinical research office of the endourological society (CROES) pcnl global study database. Scand J Urol. 2013;47(6):509–14. doi: https://doi.org/10.3109/21681805.2013.803261
Tefekli A, Karadag MA, Tepeler K, Sari E, Berberoglu Y, Baykal M, et al. Classification of Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy Complications Using 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
Shoaib M, Bangash M, Salam B, Ather MH. The Correlation Between STONE Nephrolithometry Score and Hemoglobin Drop in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy. Cureus. 2020;12(11):e11430. doi: https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.11430
Yarimoglu S, Bozkurt IH, Aydogdu O, Yonguc T, Sefik E, Topcu YK, et al. External validation and comparison of the scoring systems (S.T.O.N.E, GUY, CROES, S-ReSC) for predicting percutaneous nephrolithotomy outcomes for staghorn stones: A single center experience with 160 cases. Kaohsiung J Med Sci. 2017;33(10):516–22. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.kjms.2017.06.017
Jiang K, Sun F, Zhu J, Luo G, Zhang P, Ban Y, et al. Evaluation of three stone-scoring systems for predicting SFR and complications after percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Urol. 2019;19(1):57. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12894-019-0488-y
Withington J, Armitage J, Finch W, Wiseman O, Glass J, Burgess N. Assessment of Stone Complexity for PCNL: A Systematic Review of the Literature, How Best Can We Record Stone Complexity in PCNL? J Endourol. 2016;30(1):13–23. doi: https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2015.0278
Biswas K, Gupta SK, Tak GR, Ganpule AP, Sabnis RB, Desai MR. Comparison of STONE score, Guy’s stone score and Clinical Research Office of the Endourological Society (CROES) score as predictive tools for percutaneous nephrolithotomy outcome: a prospective study. BJU Int. 2020;126(4):494–501. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.15130
Khan N, Nazim SM, Farhan M, Salam B, Ather MH. Validation of S.T.O.N.E nephrolithometry and Guy’s stone score for predicting surgical outcome after percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Urol Ann. 2020;12(4):324–30. doi: https://doi.org/10.4103/ua.ua_136_19
Al Adl AM, Mohey A, Abdel Aal A, Abu-Elnasr HAF, El Karamany T, Noureldin YA. Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy Outcomes Based on S.T.O.N.E., GUY, CROES, and S-ReSC Scoring Systems: The First Prospective Study. J Endourol. 2020;34(12):1223–8. doi: https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2019.0856
Farhan M, Nazim SM, Salam B, Ather MH. Prospective evaluation of outcome of percutaneous nephrolithotomy using the ‘STONE’ nephrolithometry score: A single-centre experience. Arab J Urol. 2015;13(4):264–9. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aju.2015.07.006
Noureldin YA, Elkoushy MA, Andonian S. External validation of the S.T.O.N.E. nephrolithometry scoring system. Can Urol Assoc J. 2015;9(5–6):190–5. doi: https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.2652
Srivastava A, Yadav P, Madhavan K, Sureka SK, Singh UP, Kapoor R, et al. Inter-observer variability amongst surgeons and radiologists in assessment of Guy’s Stone Score and S.T.O.N.E. nephrolithometry score: A prospective evaluation. Arab J Urol. 2020;18(2):118–23. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/2090598x.2019.1703278
Vicentini FC, Serzedello FR, Thomas K, Marchini GS, Torricelli FCM, Srougi M, et al. What is the quickest scoring system to predict percutaneous nephrolithotomy outcomes? A comparative study among S.T.O.N.E score, Guy’s Stone Ccore and CROES nomogram. Int Braz J Urol. 2017;43(6):1102–9. doi: https://doi.org/10.1590/s1677-5538.ibju.2016.0586
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Revista Mexicana de Urología
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
