Abstract
The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of the CROES nephrolithometric nomogram and S.T.O.N.E. scoring system in predicting PCNL outcomes in terms of stone-free rate, estimated blood loss (EBL), operative time (OR), length of hospital stay (LOS), and complications. Patients who underwent PCNL for renal stones between May 2012 and January 2015 were analyzed retrospectively. The patients’ demographic characteristics and operational features were recorded prospectively in all patients postoperatively. S.T.O.N.E. and CROES nephrolithometry scores’ correlation with stone-free status, operation and fluoroscopy time, length of hospital stay (LOS) and blood loss (BL) was evaluated. Patients were categorized according to S.T.O.N.E. nephrolithometry and CROES nephrolithometry scores. Postoperative complications were graded according to modified Clavien classification (Dindo et al. in Ann Surg 240:205–213, 2004) and the correlation of both scoring systems with postoperative complications was also evaluated. We identified 437 patients who underwent PCNL between May 2012 and January 2015. A total of 262 patients who are available data for the CROES and S.T.O.N.E. scoring systems were included in the recent study. The mean S.T.O.N.E score was 7.65 ± 1.56 and the mean CROES score was 191.13 ± 64.39. The overall stone-free rate was 71.4%. Of the 262 patients, 89 experienced postoperative complications. Stone-free patients had significantly lower BMI (<0.001) and stone burden (p < 0.001). Regression analysis showed that both scoring systems were significantly associated with stone-free rates and operation time. We demonstrated that S.T.O.N.E. and CROES scoring systems were useful for predicting post-PCNL stone-free status. But both scoring systems were not useful for predicting post-PCNL complications.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Türk C, Knoll T, Petrik A et al (2015) European Association of Urology, guidelines on urolithiasis. Eur Urol 69:468
Opondo D, Gravas S, Joyce A et al (2014) Standardization of patient outcomes reporting in percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Endourol 28:767–774
Smith A, Averch TD, Shahrour K, CROES PCNL Study Group et al (2013) A nephrolithometric nomogram to predict treatment success of percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Urol 190:149–156
Okhunov Z, Friedlander JI, George AK et al (2013) S.T.O.N.E. nephrolithometry: novel surgical classification system for kidney calculi. Urology 81:1154–1159
Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien P-A et al (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240:205–213
Turna B, Umul M, Demiryoguran S et al (2007) How do increasing stone surface area and stone configuration affect overall outcome of percutaneous nephrolithotomy? J Endourol 21:34–43
Zhu Z, Wang S, Xi Q et al (2011) Logistic regression model for predicting stone-free rate after minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Urology 78:32–36
Shahrour K, Tomaszewski J, Ortiz T et al (2012) Predictors of immediate postoperative outcome of single-tract percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Urology 80:19–25
Gücük A, Uyetürk U, Oztürk U et al (2012) Does the Hounsfield unit value determined by computed tomography predict the outcome of percutaneous nephrolitomy? J Endourol 25:792–796
Lehman DS, Hruby GW, Phillips C et al (2008) Prospective randomized comparison of a combined ultrasonic and pneumatic lithotrite with a standard ultrasonic lithotrite for percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Endourol 22:285–289
Thomas K, Smith NC, Hegarty N et al (2011) The Guy’s stone score—grading the complexity of percutaneous nephrolithotomy procedures. Urology 78:277–281
Ferguson MK, Durkin AE (2003) A comparison of three scoring systems for predicting complications after major lung resection. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 23:35–42
Vernez SL, Okhunov Z, Motamedinia P et al (2016) Nephrolithometric Scoring Systems to Predict Outcomes of Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy. Rev Urol 18:15–27
Noureldin YA, Elkoushy MA, Andonian S (2015) Which is better? Guy’s versus S.T.O.N.E. nephrolithometry scoring systems in predicting stone-free status post-percutaneous nephrolithotomy. World J Urol 33:1821–1825
Labadie K, Okhunov Z, Akhavein A et al (2015) Evaluation and comparison of urolithiasis scoring systems used in percutaneous kidney stone surgery. J Urol 193:154–159
Okhunov Zhamshid, Moreira Daniel, George Arvin et al (2014) Pd32-09 Multicenter validation of S.T.O.N.E. nephrolithometry. J Urol 191(4):839
Akhavein A, Henriksen C, Syed J (2015) Prediction of single procedure success rate using S.T.O.N.E. nephrolithometry surgical classification system with strict criteria for surgical outcome. Urology 85:69–73
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Human and animal rights
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Yarimoglu, S., Polat, S., Bozkurt, I. et al. Comparison 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 45, 489–494 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-016-0935-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-016-0935-0