Top

Published in:

01-09-2021 | Endoscopy of the Urinary Tract | Original Article

Evaluation of a free 3D software for kidney stones’ surgical planning: “kidney stone calculator” a pilot study

Authors: Frédéric Panthier, Olivier Traxer, Laurent Yonneau, Thierry Lebret, Laurent Berthe, Lounès Illoul, Marc-Olivier Timsit, Arnaud Mejean, Steeve Doizi, François Audenet

Published in: World Journal of Urology | Issue 9/2021

Abstract

Introduction

Kidney Stone Calculator (KSC) is a free, three-dimensional (3D) planning software for flexible ureteroscopy(fURS) with Holmium:YAG(Ho:YAG) endocorporeal lithotripsy (EL). KSC provides the stone volume (SV) and expected duration of lithotripsy (ExDL) estimations based on non-enhanced-CT scan (NECT) DICOM series. We aimed to provide a preclinical and clinical evaluation of KSC.

Patients and methods

A preclinical evaluation measured the SV by three operators (resident, endourology expert and research engineer) among 17 NECT cases. Between January and March 2020, a multicentric, prospective, observational double-blind clinical evaluation was conducted in patients presenting with renal stones treated with Ho:YAG-EL during fURS and preoperative NECT. Demographic and surgical data were collected. The primary endpoint was a significant median difference between ExDL and EffectiveDL (EfDL). Second, efficiency (J/mm³) and efficacy (mm³/min) ratios were calculated.

Results

The preclinical evaluation showed no significant difference in the SV measurements among operators (p > 0.05). Pearson and Kendall coefficients of 0.99 and 0.98, respectively, were found. Twenty-six patients were included in the clinical evaluation, with a median age of 55 years. In 66% of cases, there was a single stone located in the lower pole, with a density > 1000 Hounsfield Unit observed in 42% and 85% of cases. A 14% [Q1–Q3 (5.4–24.8); p = 0.36] median difference between ExDL and EfDL was noted, which was greater in the case of lower pole stones with no possible relocation (p = 0.008). Median values of 17.6 J/mm³ and 0.4 (0.32–0.56) mm³/s EL were also noted.

Conclusions

Kidney Stone Calculator is a reproducible and accurate software that allows for an estimation of the stone burden and provides an ExDL for URSf. Defining the influencing factors of EL will improve its ExDL.

Available only for authorised users

Türk C, Petřík A, Sarica K, Seitz C, Skolarikos A, Straub M et al (2016) EAU guidelines on interventional treatment for urolithiasis. EurUrol mars 69(3):475–482

Patel SR, Nakada SY (2011) Quantification of preoperative stone burden for ureteroscopy and shock wave lithotripsy: current state and future recommendations. Urology 78(2):282–285CrossRef

Hyams ES, Bruhn A, Lipkin M, Shah O (2010) Heterogeneity in the reporting of disease characteristics and treatment outcomes in studies evaluating treatments for nephrolithiasis. J Endourol 24(9):1411–1414CrossRef

Merigot de Treigny O, Bou Nasr E, Almont T, Tack I, Rischmann P, Soulié M et al (2015) The cumulated stone diameter: a limited tool for stone burden estimation. Urology 86(3):477–481CrossRef

De Coninck V, Traxer O (2018) The time has come to report stone burden in terms of volume instead of largest diameter. J Endourol 32(3):265–266CrossRef

Assimos D, Krambeck A, Miller NL, Monga M, Murad MH, Nelson CP et al (2016) Surgical management of stones: American urological association/endourological society guideline, guideline, part I. J Urol. 196(4):1153–1160CrossRef

Ackermann D, Griffith DP, Dunthorn M, Newman RC, Finlayson B (1989) Calculation of stone volume and urinary stone staging with computer assistance. J Endourol. 3(4):355–360CrossRef

Panthier F, Doizi S, Illoul L, Berthe L, Traxer O (2020) Developing free three-dimensional software for surgical planning for kidney stones: volume is better than diameter. Eur Urol Focus [Internet]. 24 juin 2020 [cité 24 juin 2020]; Disponible sur: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405456920301619

Fedorov A, Beichel R, Kalpathy-Cramer J, Finet J, Fillion-Robin J-C, Pujol S et al (2012) 3D Slicer as an image computing platform for the Quantitative Imaging Network. MagnReson Imaging 30(9):1323–1341CrossRef

10.

Panthier F, Doizi S, Lapouge P, Chaussain C, Kogane N, Berthe L et al (2020) Comparison of the ablation rates, fissures and fragments produced with 150 µm and 272 µm laser fibers with superpulsed thulium fiber laser: an in vitro study. World J Urol 6:1–9

11.

Panthier F (2020) fredericpanthier/SlicerKidneyStoneCalculator [Internet]. 2019 [cité 11 févr 2020]. Disponible sur: https://github.com/fredericpanthier/SlicerKidneyStoneCalculator. Accessed 23 Nov 2019

12.

Diamand R, Idrissi-Kaitouni M, Coppens E, Roumeguère T, Legrand F (2018) Evaluation of stone size before flexible ureteroscopy: which measurement is best? Progres En Urol J AssocFrancaiseUrolSocFrancaise Urol. 28(1):62–70CrossRef

13.

Ziemba JB, Li P, Gurnani R, Kawamoto S, Fishman E, Fung G et al (2018) A user-friendly application to automate CT renal stone measurement. J Endourol 32(8):685–691CrossRef

14.

Patel SR, Stanton P, Zelinski N, Borman EJ, Pozniak MA, Nakada SY et al (2011) Automated renal stone volume measurement by noncontrast computerized tomography is more reproducible than manual linear size measurement. J Uroldéc 186(6):2275–2279CrossRef

15.

Wilhelm K, Miernik A, Hein S, Schlager D, Adams F, Benndorf M et al (2018) Validating automated kidney stone volumetry in CT and mathematical correlation with estimated stone volume based on diameter. J Endourol 32(7):659–664CrossRef

16.

Goo JM, Tongdee T, Tongdee R, Yeo K, Hildebolt CF, Bae KT (2005) Volumetric measurement of synthetic lung nodules with multi-detector row CT: effect of various image reconstruction parameters and segmentation thresholds on measurement accuracy. Radiology 235(3):850–856CrossRef

17.

Ko JP, Rusinek H, Jacobs EL, Babb JS, Betke M, McGuinness G et al (2003) Small pulmonary nodules: volume measurement at chest CT–phantom study. Radiology 228(3):864–870CrossRef

18.

Fukushima H, Takemura K, Suzuki H, Koga F (2018) Impact of sarcopenia as a prognostic biomarker of bladder cancer. Int J Mol Sci 19(10):2999CrossRef

19.

Demehri S, Kalra MK, Rybicki FJ, Steigner ML, Lang MJ, Houseman EA et al (2011) Quantification of urinary stone volume: attenuation threshold-based CT method—a technical note. Radiology 258(3):915–922CrossRef

20.

Ventimiglia E, Pauchard F, Gorgen ARH, Panthier F, Doizi S, Traxer O (2021) How do we assess the efficacy of Ho:YAG low-power laser lithotripsy for the treatment of upper tract urinary stones? Introducing the Joules/mm3 and laser activity concepts. World J Urol. 39(3):891–896. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-020-03241-9CrossRefPubMed

21.

Brisbane W, Bailey MR, Sorensen MD (2016) An overview of kidney stone imaging techniques. Nat Rev Urol 13(11):654–662CrossRef

22.

Danilovic A, Rocha BA, Marchini GS, Traxer O, Batagello C, Vicentini FC et al (2019) Computed tomography window affects kidney stones measurements. Int Braz J Urol Off J BrazSocUrol 45(5):948–955CrossRef

23.

Sharma K, Rupprecht C, Caroli A, Aparicio MC, Remuzzi A, Baust M et al (2017) Automatic segmentation of kidneys using deep learning for total kidney volume quantification in autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease. Sci Rep. 7(1):1–10CrossRef

24.

Pinar U, Anract J, Duquesne I, Dariane C, Chartier-Kastler E, Cussenot O et al (2020) Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on surgical activity within academic urological departments in Paris. Progres En Urol J AssocFrancaiseUrolSocFrancaiseUrol 30:439–447CrossRef

25.

Scales CD, Smith AC, Hanley JM, Saigal CS (2012) Urologic diseases in America Project. Prevalence of kidney stones in the United States. EurUrol 62(1):160–165

26.

Roger C, Abid N, Dubourg L, Auvergnon C, Lemoine S, Machon C (2020) Composition of urinary calculi: lessons from a French epidemiologic retrospective study. Progres En Urol J AssocFrancaiseUrolSocFrancaise Urol. 30(6):339–345CrossRef

27.

Lildal SK, Andreassen KH, Baard J, Brehmer M, Bultitude M, Eriksson Y et al (2020) Consultation on kidney stones, Copenhagen 2019: aspects of intracorporeal lithotripsy in flexible ureterorenoscopy. World J Urol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-020-03481-9CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

28.

Panthier F, Ventimiglia E, Berthe L, Chaussain C, Daudon M, Doizi S et al (2020) How much energy do we need to ablate 1 mm³ of stone during Ho:YAG laser lithotripsy? An in vitro study. World J Urol 38:2945–2953CrossRef

29.

Doizi S, Keller EX, De Coninck V, Traxer O (2018) Dusting technique for lithotripsy: what does it mean? Nat Rev Urol 15(11):653–654CrossRef

30.

Keller EX, De Coninck V, Doizi S, Daudon M, Traxer O (2021) What is the exact definition of stone dust? An in vitro evaluation. World J Urol. 39(1):187–194. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-020-03178-zCrossRefPubMed

31.

Somani BK, Desai M, Traxer O, Lahme S (2014) Stone-free rate (SFR): a new proposal for defining levels of SFR. Urolithiasis 42(2):95CrossRef

Title: Evaluation of a free 3D software for kidney stones’ surgical planning: “kidney stone calculator” a pilot study
Authors: Frédéric Panthier
Olivier Traxer
Laurent Yonneau
Thierry Lebret
Laurent Berthe
Lounès Illoul
Marc-Olivier Timsit
Arnaud Mejean
Steeve Doizi
François Audenet
Publication date: 01-09-2021
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Keywords: Endoscopy of the Urinary Tract
Laser
Published in: World Journal of Urology / Issue 9/2021
Print ISSN: 0724-4983
Electronic ISSN: 1433-8726
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-021-03671-z

2024 ASCO Annual Meeting

Springer Medicine

Evaluation of a free 3D software for kidney stones’ surgical planning: “kidney stone calculator” a pilot study

Abstract

Introduction

Patients and methods

Results

Conclusions

2024 ASCO Annual Meeting

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Introduction

Patients and methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 9/2021

Clinical trials in urological oncology: COVID-19 and the potential need for a new perspective

The prognostic value of high-grade prostate cancer pattern on MRI-targeted biopsies: predictors for downgrading and importance of concomitant systematic biopsies

The negative aftermath of prostate biopsy: prophylaxis, complications and antimicrobial stewardship: results of the global prevalence study of infections in urology 2010–2019

Incidence and risk factors of venous thromboembolism after percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a single-center experience

Can anterior approach be used for all patients with upper ureteric stones for shock wave lithotripsy?

Every ureteral stone deserves conventional management prior to intervention