Comparison Between Guys Stone Score and S.T.O.N.E Score in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy
- 1. Additional Professor, Department of Urology, Government Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, India
- 2. Senior Resident, Department of Urology, Government Medical Colleege, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, India
Description
Background: This study was conducted to estimate the stone-free rates and complication rates in patients with different grades of Guy’s stone score and S.T.O.N.E. nephrolithometry scores undergoing percutaneous nephrolithotomy, study the correlation between Guy’s stone score and S.T.O.N.E. score and operative times, length of hospital stay and other selected outcomes, and compare the area under the curve for Guy’s stone score and S.T.O.N.E. score for post-percutaneous nephrolithotomy outcomes. Methods: This was a hospital-based prospective observational study conducted among 164 patients who underwent Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy (PCNL) in the Department of Urology, Government Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram, over a period of one year, after obtaining clearance from the institutional ethics committee and written informed consent from the study participants. Results: The mean Guys stone score in the study population was 1.75 ± 0.95, whereas the mean S.T.O.N.E score was 7.45 ± 1.22. The overall complication rate in our study was 25.61%. The complication rates had a significant correlation with the Guys stone score (p<0.0001) as well as with the S.T.O.N.E. score (p<0.0001). There was a significant correlation between the Guys stone score and stone free rate (p < 0.0001) as well as between the S.T.O.N.E. score and stone free rate (p < 0.0001). Conclusion: Both GSS and STONE scores are equally effective in predicting the success rate as well as complication rates associated with PCNL. Operative time and length of hospital stay also correlate with both scores studied. However, the fluoroscopy time does not correlate with either scoring systems used.
Abstract (English)
Background: This study was conducted to estimate the stone-free rates and complication rates in patients with different grades of Guy’s stone score and S.T.O.N.E. nephrolithometry scores undergoing percutaneous nephrolithotomy, study the correlation between Guy’s stone score and S.T.O.N.E. score and operative times, length of hospital stay and other selected outcomes, and compare the area under the curve for Guy’s stone score and S.T.O.N.E. score for post-percutaneous nephrolithotomy outcomes. Methods: This was a hospital-based prospective observational study conducted among 164 patients who underwent Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy (PCNL) in the Department of Urology, Government Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram, over a period of one year, after obtaining clearance from the institutional ethics committee and written informed consent from the study participants. Results: The mean Guys stone score in the study population was 1.75 ± 0.95, whereas the mean S.T.O.N.E score was 7.45 ± 1.22. The overall complication rate in our study was 25.61%. The complication rates had a significant correlation with the Guys stone score (p<0.0001) as well as with the S.T.O.N.E. score (p<0.0001). There was a significant correlation between the Guys stone score and stone free rate (p < 0.0001) as well as between the S.T.O.N.E. score and stone free rate (p < 0.0001). Conclusion: Both GSS and STONE scores are equally effective in predicting the success rate as well as complication rates associated with PCNL. Operative time and length of hospital stay also correlate with both scores studied. However, the fluoroscopy time does not correlate with either scoring systems used.
Files
IJPCR,Vol15,Issue6,Article87.pdf
Files
(493.2 kB)
| Name | Size | Download all |
|---|---|---|
|
md5:8e44ba9ee1d6dbba5b8094e584554444
|
493.2 kB | Preview Download |
Additional details
Dates
- Accepted
-
2023-05-30
Software
- Repository URL
- https://impactfactor.org/PDF/IJPCR/15/IJPCR,Vol15,Issue6,Article87.pdf
- Development Status
- Active
References
- 1. Goodwin WE, Casey WC, Woolf W. Percutaneous trocar (needle) nephrostomy in hydronephrosis. J Am Med Assoc 1955;157(11):891-4. 2. Fernström I, Johansson B. Percutaneous pyelolithotomy. A new extraction technique. Scand J Urol Nephrol 1976;10(3):257-9. 3. Thomas K, Smith NC, Hegarty N, Glass JM. The Guy's stone score--grading the complexity of percutaneous nephrolithotomy procedures. Urology 2011;78(2):277-81. 4. Smith A, Averch TD, Shahrour K, Opondo D, Daels FP, Labate G, et al. A nephrolithometric nomogram to predict treatment success of percutaneous nephrolithotomy. The Journal of Urology 2013;190(1):149-56. 5. Okhunov Z, Friedlander JI, George AK, Duty BD, Moreira DM, Srinivasan AK, et al. STONE nephrolithometry: novel surgical classification system for kidney calculi. Urology 2013;81(6):1154-60. 6. Jeong C, Jung JW, Cha W, Lee BK, Lee S, Jeong S, et al. Seoul national university renal stone complexity score for predicting stone-free rate after percutaneous nephrolithotomy. PloS One 2013;8:e65888. 7. 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. 8. Park J, Kang M, Jeong CW, Oh S, Lee JW, Lee SB, et al. External validation and evaluation of reliability and validity of the modified seoul national university renal stone complexity scoring system to predict stone-free status after retrograde intrarenal surgery. J Endourol 2015;29(8):888-93. 9. Ingimarsson J, Dagrosa L, Hyams E, Pais V. External validation of a preoperative renal stone grading system: reproducibility and inter-rater concordance of the Guy's stone score using preoperative computed tomography and rigorous postoperative stone-free criteria. Urology 2014;83(1):45-9. 10. Romero V, Akpinar H, Assimos DG. Kidney stones: a global picture of prevalence, incidence, and associated risk factors. Rev Urol 2010;12(2- 3):e86-96. 11. Vicentini FC, Marchini GS, Mazzucchi E, Claro JF, Srougi M. Utility of the Guy's stone score based on computed tomographic scan findings for predicting percutaneous nephrolithotomy outcomes. Urology 2014;83(6):1248-53. 12. Yasui T, Iguchi M, Suzuki S, Kohri K. Prevalence and epidemiological characteristics of urolithiasis in japan: national trends between 1965 and 2005. Urology 2008;71(2):209-13. 13. Curhan GC, Willett WC, Rimm EB, Speizer FE, Stampfer MJ. Body size and risk of kidney stones. Journal of the American Society of Nephrology 1998;9(9):1645-52. 14. Taylor EN, Stampfer MJ, Curhan GC. Obesity, weight gain, and the risk of kidney stones. JAMA 2005;293(4):455- 62. 15. Soucie JM, Thun MJ, Coates RJ, McClellan W, Austin H. Demographic and geographic variability of kidney stones in the United States. Kidney Int 1994;46(3):893-9. 16. Scales CD, Curtis LH, Norris RD, Springhart WP, Sur RL, Schulman KA, et al. Changing gender prevalence of stone disease. J Urol 2007;177(3):979- 82. 17. Preminger G, Assimos D, Lingeman J, Nakada S, Pearle M, Wolf J. Chapter 1: AUA guideline on management of staghorn calculi: diagnosis and treatment recommendations. J Urol 2005;31(3):271. 18. Kumsar Ş, Aydemir H, Halis F, Köse O, Gökçe A, Adsan O. Value of preoperative stone scoring systems inpredicting the results of percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Cent Eur J Urol 2015;68(3):353-7. 19. Akhavein A, Henriksen C, Syed J, Bird VG. Prediction of single procedure success rate using S.T.O.N.E. nephrolithometry surgical classification system with strict criteria for surgical outcome. Urology 2015;85(1):69-73. 20. Labadie K, Okhunov Z, Akhavein A, Moreira DM, Moreno-Palacios J, del Junco M, et al. Evaluation and comparison of urolithiasis scoring systems used in percutaneous kidney stone surgery. J Urol 2015;193(1):154- 9.