A Scoring System for Optimal Selection of Endoscopic Treatment for 1-2cm Lower Pole Renal Calculi
Urology Journal,
Vol. 19 No. 05 (2022),
8 November 2022
,
Page 356-362
https://doi.org/10.22037/uj.v19i05.7195
Abstract
Purpose: To explore the establishment of a scoring system that can provide a reference for clinical decision making
regarding the endoscopic treatment of 1-2 cm lower pole stones (LPS).
Materials and Methods: The data of patients with renal calculi who were treated with percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) or retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) in three hospitals from January 2013 to December 2017 were analyzed retrospectively. Multivariable logistic analysis was performed to determine the statistically significant indicators and regression coefficients, which were used to construct the scoring system. The stone-free rate (SFR) and postoperative complication rates of PCNL and RIRS within the two fractional segments of the scoring system were compared to select the optimal procedures.
Results: A total of 137 patients in the PCNL group and 152 patients in the RIRS group were included in this study.
Five factors were found to be most predictive of endoscopic treatment choice: stone number, stone diameter, infundibulopelvic angle (IPA), infundibular length (IL), and infundibular width (IW), yielding a total score ranging from
0-5. In the 0-2 segments, the RIRS group had better outcomes than the PCNL group in terms of the postoperative
complication rates (6.8% versus 18.0%, P = .026). In segments 3-5, the SFR of the PCNL group was significantly
higher than that of the RIRS group (88.5% versus 70.6%, P = .017).
Conclusion: Our scoring system was based on the patient’s preoperative imaging examination to measure the
stone number, stone diameter, IPA, IL and IW. RIRS was recommended at 0-2 segments, and PCNL was recommended at 3-5 segments. This new scoring system is expected to provide guidance for urologists to make endoscopic treatment decisions for 1-2 cm LPS.
- renal calculi, ureteroscopy, Ho YAG Laser
How to Cite
References
Donaldson JF, Lardas M, Scrimgeour D, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of the clinical effectiveness of shock wave lithotripsy, retrograde intrarenal surgery, and percutaneous nephrolithotomy for lower-pole renal stones. Eur Urol. 2015; 67: 612-6.
Zeng G, Zhang T, Agrawal M, et al. Super-mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy (SMP) vs retrograde intrarenal surgery for the treatment of 1-2 cm lower-pole renal calculi: an international multicentre randomised controlled trial. BJU Int. 2018; 122: 1034-1040.
Li MM, Yang HM, Liu XM, Qi HG, Weng GB. Retrograde intrarenal surgery vs miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy to treat lower pole renal stones 1.5-2.5 cm in diameter. World J Clin Cases. 2018; 6: 931-935.
Bozkurt OF, Resorlu B, Yildiz Y, Can CE, Unsal A. Retrograde intrarenal surgery versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the management of lower-pole renal stones with a diameter of 15 to 20 mm. J Endourol. 2011; 25: 1131-5.
Bozzini G, Verze P, Arcaniolo D, et al. A prospective randomized comparison among SWL, PCNL and RIRS for lower calyceal stones less than 2 cm: a multicenter experience : A better understanding on the treatment options for lower pole stones. World J Urol. 2017; 35: 1967-1975.
Seitz C, Desai M, Häcker A, et al. Incidence, prevention, and management of complications following percutaneous nephrolitholapaxy. Eur Urol. 2012; 61: 146-58.
Donaldson JF, Lardas M, Scrimgeour D, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of the clinical effectiveness of shock wave lithotripsy, retrograde intrarenal surgery, and percutaneous nephrolithotomy for lower-pole renal stones. Eur Urol. 2015; 67: 612-6.
Elbahnasy AM, Shalhav AL, Hoenig DM, et al. Lower caliceal stone clearance after shock wave lithotripsy or ureteroscopy: the impact of lower pole radiographic anatomy. J Urol. 1998; 159: 676-82.
Sampaio FJ, Aragao AH. Inferior pole collecting system anatomy: its probable role in extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol. 1992; 147: 322-4.
Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg. 2004; 240: 205-13.
Ozturk U, Sener NC, Goktug HN, Nalbant I, Gucuk A, Imamoglu MA. Comparison of percutaneous nephrolithotomy, shock wave lithotripsy, and retrograde intrarenal surgery for lower pole renal calculi 10-20 mm. Urol Int. 2013; 91: 345-9.
Atalay HA, Canat L, Bayraktarlı R, Alkan I, Can O, Altunrende F. Evaluation of stone volume distribution in renal collecting system as a predictor of stone-free rate after percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a retrospective single-center study. Urolithiasis. 2018; 46: 303-309.
Olbert PJ, Hegele A, Schrader AJ, Scherag A, Hofmann R. Pre- and perioperative predictors of short-term clinical outcomes in patients undergoing percutaneous nephrolitholapaxy. Urol Res. 2007; 35: 225-30.
Li T, Sun XZ, Lai DH, Li X, He YZ. Fever and systemic inflammatory response syndrome after retrograde intrarenal surgery: Risk factors and predictive model. Kaohsiung J Med Sci. 2018; 34: 400-408.
Inoue T, Murota T, Okada S, et al. Influence of Pelvicaliceal Anatomy on Stone Clearance After Flexible Ureteroscopy and Holmium Laser Lithotripsy for Large Renal Stones. J Endourol. 2015; 29: 998-1005.
Binbay M, Akman T, Ozgor F, et al. Does pelvicaliceal system anatomy affect success of percutaneous nephrolithotomy? Urology. 2011; 78: 733-7.
Okhunov Z, Friedlander JI, George AK, et al. S.T.O.N.E. nephrolithometry: novel surgical classification system for kidney calculi. Urology. 2013; 81: 1154-9.
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.
- Abstract Viewed: 262 times
- 7195/pdf Downloaded: 227 times