Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Urolithiasis
Published in: Urolithiasis 5/2018

01-10-2018 | Original Paper

Comparison of STONE, CROES and Guy’s nephrolithometry scoring systems for predicting stone-free status and complication rates after percutaneous nephrolithotomy in obese patients

Authors: Faruk Ozgor, Fatih Yanaral, Metin Savun, Harun Ozdemir, Omer Sarilar, Murat Binbay

Published in: Urolithiasis | Issue 5/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

In this study, we aim to evaluate the accuracy of STONE (stone size, tract length, obstruction, number of involved calyces, and essence/stone density), Clinical Research Office of the Endourological Society (CROES), and Guy’s nephrolithometry scoring systems (NSS) in obese patients. The charts of patients who underwent percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PNL) between June 2008 and June 2016 were retrospectively analyzed. Calculations of the STONE, CROES, and Guy’s NSS were performed by a resident who was well informed regarding each NSS. Patients were classified under nine scores according to STONE, four grades according to CROES, and four grades according to Guy’s NSS. In total, 248 obese patients were enrolled in the study. Stone size was significantly higher in patients without stone-free status (p = 0.001). In patients who were stone-free and those with residual stones, the mean STONE score was 9.71 and 9.23 (p = 0.160), CROES was 172 and 129 (p = 0.001), and Guy’s NSS was 1.67 and 2.75 (p = 0.001). Multivariate regression analysis identified the CROES and Guy’s NSS were independent factors for PNL success in obese patients (p = 0.01 and p = 0.01, respectively). The CROES and Guy’s NSS showed good accuracy with PNL success (AUC = 0.777 and AUC = 0.844, respectively). None of the three NSS systems were statically associated with a complication rate (p = 0.23 for STONE, p = 0.14 for CROES, and p = 0.51 for Guy’s NSS). Our study demonstrated that CROES and Guy’s NSS were independent predictors of stone-free rate following PNL in obese patients. Our study also revealed that three of the NSSs were not useful for predicting PNL complications in obese patients.
Literature
1.
Türk C, Petrik A, Sarica K et al (2016) EAU guidelines on diagnosis and conservative management of urolithiasis. Eur Urol 69:468–474CrossRefPubMed
2.
Torrecilla Ortiz C, Meza Martínez AI, Vicens Morton AJ et al (2014) Obesity in percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Is body mass index really important? Urology 84:538–543CrossRefPubMed
3.
de Simone G, Devereux RB, Chinali M et al (2007) Prognostic impact of metabolic syndrome by different definitions in a population with high prevalence of obesity and diabetes: the strong heart study. Diabetes Care 30:1851–1856CrossRefPubMed
4.
Calvert RC, Burgess NA (2005) Urolithiasis and obesity: metabolic and technical considerations. Curr Opin Urol 15:113–117CrossRefPubMed
5.
Okhunov Z, Friedlander JI, George AK et al (2013) STONE nephrolithometry: novel surgical classification system for kidney calculi. Urology 81:1154–1159CrossRefPubMed
6.
Smith A, Averch TD, Shahrour K et al (2013) A nephrolithometric nomogram to predict treatment success of percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Urol 190:149–156CrossRefPubMed
7.
Thomas K, Smith NC, Hegarty N, Glass JM (2011) The Guy’s stone score–grading the complexity of percutaneous nephrolithotomy procedures. Urology 78:277–281CrossRefPubMed
8.
Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. AnnSurg 240:205–213
9.
Kuntz NJ, Neisius A, Astroza GM et al (2014) Does body mass index impact the outcomes of tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy? BJU Int 114:404–411PubMed
10.
Fuller A, Razvi H, Denstedt JD et al (2012) The CROES percutaneous nephrolithotomy global study: the influence of body mass index on outcome. J Urol 188:138–144CrossRefPubMed
11.
Mandal S, Goel A, Kathpalia R et al (2012) Prospective evaluation of complications using the modified Clavien grading system, and of success rates of percutaneous nephrolithotomy using Guy’s Stone Score: a single-center experience. Indian J Urol 28:392–398CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
12.
Ingimarsson JP, Dagrosa LM, Hyams ES, Pais VM Jr (2014) 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 83:45–49CrossRefPubMed
13.
Akhavein A, Henriksen C, Syed J, Bird VG (2015) Prediction of single procedure success rate using S.T.O.N.E. nephrolithometry surgical classification system with strict criteria for surgical outcome. Urology 85:69–73CrossRefPubMed
14.
Sfoungaristos S, Gofrit ON, Yutkin V, Landau EH, Pode D, Duvdevani M (2016) External validation of CROES nephrolithometry as a preoperative predictive system for percutaneous nephrolithotomy outcomes. J Urol 195:372–376CrossRefPubMed
15.
Tailly TO, Okhunov Z, Nadeau BR et al (2016) Multicenter external validation and comparison of stone scoring systems in predicting outcomes after percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Endourol 30:594–601CrossRefPubMed
16.
Labadie K, Okhunov Z, Akhavein A et al (2015) Evaluation and comparison of urolithiasis scoring systems used in percutaneous kidney stone surgery. J Urol 193:154–159CrossRefPubMed
17.
Sfoungaristos S, Gofrit ON, Pode D, Landau EH, Duvdevani M (2016) Percutaneous nephrolithotomy for staghorn stones: which nomogram can better predict postoperative outcomes? World J Urol 34:1163–1168CrossRefPubMed
18.
Choi SW, Bae WJ, Ha US et al (2017) Prediction of stone-free status and complication rates after tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a comparative and retrospective study using three stone-scoring systems and preoperative parameters. World J Urol 35:449–457CrossRefPubMed
19.
Kumar S, Sreenivas J, Karthikeyan VS, Mallya A, Keshavamurthy R (2016) Evaluation of CROES nephrolithometry nomogram as a preoperative predictive system for percutaneous nephrolithotomy outcomes. J Endourol 30:1079–1083CrossRefPubMed
20.
Yarimoglu S, Polat S, Bozkurt IH et al (2016) Comparision of S.T.O.N.E and CROES nephrolithometry scoring systems for predicting stone-free status and complication rates after percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a single center study with 262 cases. Urolithiasis. doi:10.​1007/​s00240-016-0935-0 CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Comparison of STONE, CROES and Guy’s nephrolithometry scoring systems for predicting stone-free status and complication rates after percutaneous nephrolithotomy in obese patients
Authors
Faruk Ozgor
Fatih Yanaral
Metin Savun
Harun Ozdemir
Omer Sarilar
Murat Binbay
Publication date
01-10-2018
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Urolithiasis / Issue 5/2018
Print ISSN: 2194-7228
Electronic ISSN: 2194-7236
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-017-1003-0

Other articles of this Issue 5/2018

Urolithiasis 5/2018 Go to the issue

Review

Preoperative double-J stent placement can improve the stone-free rate for patients undergoing ureteroscopic lithotripsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Original Paper

Antiurolithiatic effect of the taraxasterol on ethylene glycol induced kidney calculi in male rats

Original Paper

Recurrence rates of urinary calculi according to stone composition and morphology

Original Paper

The effects of HAP and macrophage cells to the expression of inflammatory factors and apoptosis in HK-2 cells of vitro co-cultured system

Letter to the Editor

Re: percutaneous nephrolithotomy—position, position, position!

Original Paper

Radiologic evaluation of children prior to SWL: to what extent they are exposed to radiation?