Journals / Endoüroloji Bülteni / 2026 / Cilt: 15 Sayı: 2

Intraoperative Assessment of Stone Free Status for Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy Surgery: Surgeon’s Eye

Perkütan Nefrolitotomi Ameliyatında Taşsızlığın İntraoperatif Değerlendirilmesi: Cerrahın Gözü

Mehmet Yiğit Yalçın(Şanlıurfa Eğitim ve Araştırma Hastanesi)0000-0001-9943-7453
Batuhan Ergani(beyhekim eğitim ve araştırma hastanesi)0000-0002-4667-855X
Taha Çetin(SAĞLIK BİLİMLERİ ÜNİVERSİTESİ, İZMİR BOZYAKA SAĞLIK UYGULAMA VE ARAŞTIRMA MERKEZİ)0000-0003-0330-4854
Mert Hamza Özbilen(SAĞLIK BİLİMLERİ ÜNİVERSİTESİ, İZMİR TEPECİK SAĞLIK UYGULAMA VE ARAŞTIRMA MERKEZİ)0000-0002-5733-6790
Çağdaş Bildirici(SAĞLIK BİLİMLERİ ÜNİVERSİTESİ, İZMİR TEPECİK SAĞLIK UYGULAMA VE ARAŞTIRMA MERKEZİ)0000-0002-4220-8147
Erkin Karaca(SAĞLIK BİLİMLERİ ÜNİVERSİTESİ, İZMİR TEPECİK SAĞLIK UYGULAMA VE ARAŞTIRMA MERKEZİ)0000-0002-9123-4069
Mehmet Yoldaş(SAĞLIK BİLİMLERİ ÜNİVERSİTESİ, İZMİR TEPECİK SAĞLIK UYGULAMA VE ARAŞTIRMA MERKEZİ)0000-0001-5031-0435
Erdem Kısa(Medicana International Izmir Hospital)0000-0002-4728-3808
Tufan Suel Özgen(SAĞLIK BİLİMLERİ ÜNİVERSİTESİ, İZMİR TEPECİK SAĞLIK UYGULAMA VE ARAŞTIRMA MERKEZİ)0000-0003-0790-3926
Gökhan Koç(SAĞLIK BİLİMLERİ ÜNİVERSİTESİ, İZMİR TEPECİK SAĞLIK UYGULAMA VE ARAŞTIRMA MERKEZİ)0000-0001-9933-9378
Özgür Çakmak(Medicana International Izmir Hospital)0000-0002-4618-9465
Hayal Boyacıoğlu(EGE ÜNİVERSİTESİ, FEN FAKÜLTESİ, İSTATİSTİK BÖLÜMÜ, İSTATİSTİK ANABİLİM DALI)0000-0003-0887-0302
Yusuf Özlem İlbey(BEZMI ALEM FOUNDATION UNIVERSITY, SCHOOL OF MEDICINE, DEPARTMENT OF SURGICAL MEDICAL SCIENCES, THE DEPARTMENT OF UROLOGY)0000-0002-1483-9160
Pages
52–60
Publication Date
2023-05-31
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

In our study, it was found that the “surgeon’s eye” predicted SFS incorrectly at a rate of 16.9%.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: In patients who underwent percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PNL),it was aimed to determine the accuracy of the surgeon’s intraoperative stone-free status (SFS) prediction, the factors affecting it, the predictors that cause incorrect estimation, and finally to evaluate the reliability of the “surgeon’s eye”.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Material and Methods: The data of 1025 patients who underwent PNL and met the inclusion criteria were evaluated retrospectively.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In our study, it was found that the “surgeon’s eye” predicted SFS incorrectly at a rate of 16.9%.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:böbrek taşları · perkütan nefrolitotomi · taşsızlık durumu

Abstract

Objective: In patients who underwent percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PNL),it was aimed to determine the accuracy of the surgeon’s intraoperative stone-free status (SFS) prediction, the factors affecting it, the predictors that cause incorrect estimation, and finally to evaluate the reliability of the “surgeon’s eye”. Material and Methods: The data of 1025 patients who underwent PNL and met the inclusion criteria were evaluated retrospectively. Since the basis of our study was based on the evaluation of the surgeon’s stone-free prediction, patients identified as “absence of residual stone fragment (RF)” by the surgeon were grouped and compared with postoperative computed tomography imaging according to the presence of RF. Results: Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value were calculated as 67.87%, 96.23%, 91.67% and 83.04%, respectively. In our study, it was found that the “surgeon’s eye” predicted SFS incorrectly at a rate of 16.9%. There was no statistically significant relationship between gender,- stone side,stone density and hemoglobin decrease between the two groups. Stone size,operation time, fluoroscopy time, location of the stone,number of stones in the calyces and GUY’s stone score (GSS) were found to be statistically significant in relation to the “surgeon’s eye”. As a result of multivariate logistic regression analysis stone size, number of stones in the calyces and GSS were significant predictors of the parameters that had a statistically significant relationship with the surgeon’s eye. Conclusion: The most important determinants of “surgeon’s eye” in PNL were stone size,number of stones in the calyces and GSS. These predictors can be used as an effective criterion in the use of methods to reduce radiation exposure in postoperative imaging of patients who are predicted to be stone-free.

Özet

Amaç: Perkütan nefrolitotomi (PNL) uygulanan hastalarda cerrahın intraoperatif taşsızlık kanısının doğruluğunu, bunu etkileyen faktörleri, yanlış tahminine sebep olan prediktörleri saptamak ve sonuç olarak “cerrah gözü” ‘nün güvenilirliğini değerlendirmek amaçlandı. Gereç ve Yöntemler: PNL uygulanan ve dahil etme kriterlerine uyan 1025 hastanın verileri retrospektif olarak incelendi. Çalışmamızın temeli cerrahın taşşsızlığı değerlendirmesi üzerine olması sebebiyle, cerrahın intraoperatif rezidü taş (RT) kalmadığı kanaatini belirttiği ancak postoperatif bilgisayarlı tomografi görüntülemede RT olan ve olmayan hasta grupları değişkenlere göre karşılaştırıldı. Bulgular: Cerrah gözü‘nün sensitivitesi %67,87, spesifitesi %96,23, pozitif prediktif değeri %91,67 ve negatif prediktif değeri %83,04 bulundu. Çalışmamızda “cerrahın gözü” ‘nün %16,9 oranında yanlış taşsızlık tahmin ettiği saptandı. Her iki grup arasında cinsiyet, taşın tarafı, taşın yoğunluğu ve hemoglobin düşüşü arasında istatistiksel anlamlı ilişki saptanmadı. Taş boyutu, operasyon süresi, floroskopi süresi, taşın konumu, kaliks taşlarının sayısı ve GUY’s nefrolitometri skoru (GSS) cerrahın gözü ile istatistiksel anlamlı ilişkili saptandı. Cerrahın gözü ile istatistiksel anlamlı ilişki saptanan parametrelerin çok değişkenli (multivariate) lojistik regresyon analizi sonucunda sırasıyla taş boyutu, kaliks taşlarının sayısı ve GSS anlamlı prediktörler olarak bulundu. Sonuç: PNL’ de “cerrah gözü” nün en önemli prediktörleri taş boyutu, kaliks taş sayısı ve GSS idi. Bu prediktörler taşsızlık öngörülen hastaların postoperatif görüntülemelerinde, radyasyon maruziyetini azaltacak yöntemlerin kullanılmasında etkili bir kriter olarak kullanılabilir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Yalçın, M. Y., Ergani, B., Çetin, T., Karabıçak, M., Özbilen, M. H., Bildirici, Ç., Karaca, E., Yoldaş, M., Kısa, E., Özgen, T. S., Koç, G., Çakmak, Ö., Boyacıoğlu, H., İlbey, Y. Ö. (2023). Intraoperative Assessment of Stone Free Status for Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy Surgery: Surgeon’s Eye. Endoüroloji Bülteni, Cilt: 15 Sayı: 2, 52–60. https://doi.org/10.54233/endouroloji.20231502-1282074

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (14)

  1. Turk C, Petřik A, Sarica K, et al. EAU Guidelines on Interventional Treatment for Urolithiasis. Eur Urol 2016;69:475-82
  2. Thomas K, Smith NC, Hegarty N, Glass JM. The Guy’s stone score—Grading the complexity of percutaneous nephrolithotomy procedures. Urology 2011;78: 277–81. https://doi:10.1016/j.urology.2010.12.026
  3. Smith A, Averch TD, Shahrour K, et al. A nephrolithometric nomogram to predict treatment success of percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Journal of Urology 2013;190: 149– 56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2013.01.047
  4. Lehtoranta K, Mankinen P, Taari K, et al. Residual stones after percutaneous nephrolithotomy: sensitivities of different imaging methods in renal stone detection. Ann Chir Gynaecol 1995;84: 43–49.
  5. Gokce MI, Ozden E, Suer E, et al. Comparison of imaging modalities for detection of residual fragments and prediction of stone related events following percutaneous nephrolitotomy. Int Braz J Urol 2015;41: 86-90. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1677- 5538.IBJU.2015.01.12
  6. Emmott AS, Brotherhood HL, Paterson RF, Lange D, Chew B.H. Complications, Re- Intervention Rates, and Natural History of Residual Stone Fragments After Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy. J Endourol 2018;32:28-32. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2017.0618
  7. Wong, VKF, Que J, Kong EK, et al. The Fate of Residual Fragments after PCNL: Results from the EDGE Research Consortium. Journal of Endourology ja. (2023). https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2022.0561
  8. Harraz AM, Osman Y, El-Nahas AR, et al. Residual stones after percutaneous nephrolithotomy: Comparison of intraoperative assessment and postoperative non- contrast computerized tomography. World J Urol 2017;35:1241–46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-016-1990-4
  9. Portis AJ, Laliberte MA, Holtz C, et al. Confident intraoperative decision making during percutaneous nephrolithotomy: Does this patient need a second look? Urology 2008;71: 218–22. doi:10.1016/j. urology.2007.08.063
  10. Gokce MI, Gulpınar O, İbisA, et al. Retrograde vs. antegrade fl exible nephroscopy for detection of residual fragments following PnL: A prospective study with computerized tomography control. Int Braz J Urol 2019;45: 581-7. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1677- 5538.IBJU.2018.0695
  11. Perez-Fentes DA, Gude F, Blanco M, Novoa R, Freire CG. Predictive analysis of factors associated with percutaneous stone surgery outcomes. Can J Urol 2013;20: 7050–59. PMID: 24331348
  12. Nevo A, Holland R, Schreter E, et al. How Reliable Is the Intraoperative Assessment of Residual Fragments During Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy? A Prospective Study. J Endourol 2018;32:471-75. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2018.0005
  13. Noureldin YA, Elkoushy MA, Andonian S. 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 2015;33: 1821-25. doi:10.1007/s00345-015-1508-5
  14. 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: 1248–53. doi:10.1016/j. urology.2013.12.041