This rearrangement improves prediction of SFR and better discriminates riskgroups in PCNL.
📌 3 Key Takeaways
🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: We propose a modification of the original Guy´s Stone Score (GSS) to hold on 20 % of prognosticdiscrimination among groups which makes this score a more reliable resource for risk assessment in patientsundergoing percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL).Material and methods: Historical cohort of 126 patients undergoing PCNL from December 2010 to November2014 was included in the survey.
📊
Key Findings & Data:For thenew classification of Guy Stone Score (GSS-M) all of the subgroups included in the scale were analyzedindividually and then ranked from better to worst according to the postoperative stone- free rates (SFRs).This ranking led us to reclassify all the original subgroups, clustering them in three new categories accordingto their SFRs as subgroups of good, intermediate and poor prognosis, trying to achieve at least 20% ofprognostic discrimination among the groups.Results: Hundred and twenty-six PCNL procedures were evaluated, but only 124 were included for statisticalanalysis and classified based on SFR according to the GSS as follows: 76% for grade 1, 71% for grade 2,55% for grade 3 and 20% for grade 4.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:This rearrangement improves prediction of SFR and better discriminates riskgroups in PCNL.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:2010 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters
Özet
Objective: We propose a modification of the original Guy´s Stone Score (GSS) to hold on 20 % of prognosticdiscrimination among groups which makes this score a more reliable resource for risk assessment in patientsundergoing percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL).Material and methods: Historical cohort of 126 patients undergoing PCNL from December 2010 to November2014 was included in the survey. Every patient was classified according to the original GSS. For thenew classification of Guy Stone Score (GSS-M) all of the subgroups included in the scale were analyzedindividually and then ranked from better to worst according to the postoperative stone- free rates (SFRs).This ranking led us to reclassify all the original subgroups, clustering them in three new categories accordingto their SFRs as subgroups of good, intermediate and poor prognosis, trying to achieve at least 20% ofprognostic discrimination among the groups.Results: Hundred and twenty-six PCNL procedures were evaluated, but only 124 were included for statisticalanalysis and classified based on SFR according to the GSS as follows: 76% for grade 1, 71% for grade 2,55% for grade 3 and 20% for grade 4. The SFRs were also assessed for the GSS-M obtaining the followingpredictive values as 93%, 67% and 44% for the good, intermediate and poor prognostic groups, respectively.The prognostic difference among the GSS-M groups was always >20% (p<0.05).Conclusion: The original GSS has limitations to predict SFR because of its poor discrimination poweramong prognostic groups. This rearrangement improves prediction of SFR and better discriminates riskgroups in PCNL.
🔖
Cite This Article
MORENO-PALACİOS, J., Ibarra, O. J. A., GARCİA-PENA, E., TORRES-ANGUİANO, J. R., SERRANO-BRAMBİLİA, E. A., LOPEZ-SAMANO, V. A., MALDONADO-ALCARAZ, E. (2018). Rearrangement of the Guy’s stone score improves prediction of stone-free rate after percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Turkish Journal of Urology, Cilt: 44 - Sayı: 1, 36–41. https://ajindex.com/articles/379959
Scales CD Jr, Smith AC, Hanley JM, Saigal CS. Prevalence of kidney stones in the United States. Eur Urol 2012;62:160-5. [CrossRef] Smith A, Averch TD, Chahrouor K, Opono D, Daels FP, Labate G, et al. A nephrolithometric nomogram to predict treatment success of percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Urol 2013;190:149-56. [CrossRef] de la Rosette J, Assimos D, Desai M, Gutierrez J, Lingeman J, Scarpa R, et al. The Clinical Research Office of the Endourological Society Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy Global Study: indicati- ons, complications, and outcomes in 5803 patients. J Endourol 2011;25:11-7. [CrossRef] Fernstrom I, Johansson B. Percutaneous pyelolithotomy. A new extraction technique. Scand J Urol Nephrol 1976;10:257-9. [CrossRef] Türk C, Petřík A, Sarica K, Seitz C, Skolarikos A, Straub M, et al. EAU Guidelines on Diagnosis and Conservative Management of Urolithiasis. Eur Urol 2016;69:468-74. [CrossRef] 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. [CrossRef] Ingimarsson JP, Dagrosa LM, Hyams ES, Pais Jr VM. External validation of a preoperative renal stone grading system: reprodu- cibility and inter-rater concordance of the Guy's stone score using preoperative computed tomography and rigorous postoperative stone-free criteria. Urology 2014;83:45-9. [CrossRef] Okhunov Z, Friedlander JI, George AK, Duty BD, Moreira DM, Srinivasan AK, et al., S.T.O.N.E. nephrolithometry: novel surgical classification system for kidney calculi. Urology 2013;81:1154-9. [CrossRef] 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;193:154-9. [CrossRef] Bozkurt IH, Aydogdu O, Yonguc T, Yarimoglu S, Volkan S, Gunlusoy B, et al. Comparison of guy and clinical research office of the endourological society nephrolithometry scoring systems for predicting stone-free status and complication rates after per- cutaneous nephrolithotomy: a single center study with 437 cases. J Endourol 2015;29:1006-10. [CrossRef] Moreno PJ, Reséndiz HJ, González RMA, Serrano BE, López RV, Maldonado AE. Predicción de la tasa libre de litiasis posterior a nefrolitotricia percutánea mediante escala de Guy. Bol Mex Urol 2014;XXIX:66-9.
Vicentini FC, Marchini GS, Mazzucchi E, Claro JF, Srougi M. Utility of the Guy's stone score based on computed tomographic scan fi