一项回顾性研究:结石评分系统作为经皮肾镜取石术预后预测工具的比较

Q4 Medicine
Gokhan Cil, M. Yılmaz, Y. Şahin, A. Müslümanoğlu
{"title":"一项回顾性研究:结石评分系统作为经皮肾镜取石术预后预测工具的比较","authors":"Gokhan Cil, M. Yılmaz, Y. Şahin, A. Müslümanoğlu","doi":"10.5937/scriptamed54-43096","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background/Aim: European urology guidelines recommend percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PNL) as a treatment modality to remove complex kidney stones over 2 cm in size. Aim of this study was to compare stone scoring systems in predicting stone-free status and complications rate after percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PNL) in abnormal kidneys. Methods: Retrospective analysis of data from 94 patients with anatomical abnormalities who underwent PNL for the kidney stones in the Clinic between January 2017 and January 2022 was performed. Sixty-four patients with renal anomalies who underwent PNL were included in the study. Guy, S.T.O.N.E. and CROES nephrolitometry scores were evaluated for each patient by the same researcher using non-contrast computed tomography. The modified Clavien grading system was used to evaluate complications. Results: The mean age and body mass index (BMI) of the patients were 46 ± 11.7 and 28 ± 6 kg/m2, respectively. There was no differences between the groups in terms of operative parameters, renal anomaly categorisation and complications. Compared with the residual stone group, GSS (2.49 vs 3.03; p = 0.001) and S.T.O.N.E. scores (7.26 vs 8.38; p = 0.021) in the stone free group were statistically significantly lower, while the CROES score was lower in the group with residual stones (172 vs 245; p < 0.001). In the Chi-square analysis performed between Clavien complication rating and stone scoring systems, no success was found in predicting the presence of complications in any scoring system. Conclusion: Although nomograms were successful in predicting postoperative stone-free status (SFS) after PNL in abnormal kidneys, they may not predict postoperative complications.","PeriodicalId":33497,"journal":{"name":"Scripta Medica","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of stone scoring systems as predictive tools for percutaneous nephrolithotomy outcome in kidneys with anatomical abnormalities: A retrospective study\",\"authors\":\"Gokhan Cil, M. Yılmaz, Y. Şahin, A. Müslümanoğlu\",\"doi\":\"10.5937/scriptamed54-43096\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background/Aim: European urology guidelines recommend percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PNL) as a treatment modality to remove complex kidney stones over 2 cm in size. Aim of this study was to compare stone scoring systems in predicting stone-free status and complications rate after percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PNL) in abnormal kidneys. Methods: Retrospective analysis of data from 94 patients with anatomical abnormalities who underwent PNL for the kidney stones in the Clinic between January 2017 and January 2022 was performed. Sixty-four patients with renal anomalies who underwent PNL were included in the study. Guy, S.T.O.N.E. and CROES nephrolitometry scores were evaluated for each patient by the same researcher using non-contrast computed tomography. The modified Clavien grading system was used to evaluate complications. Results: The mean age and body mass index (BMI) of the patients were 46 ± 11.7 and 28 ± 6 kg/m2, respectively. There was no differences between the groups in terms of operative parameters, renal anomaly categorisation and complications. Compared with the residual stone group, GSS (2.49 vs 3.03; p = 0.001) and S.T.O.N.E. scores (7.26 vs 8.38; p = 0.021) in the stone free group were statistically significantly lower, while the CROES score was lower in the group with residual stones (172 vs 245; p < 0.001). In the Chi-square analysis performed between Clavien complication rating and stone scoring systems, no success was found in predicting the presence of complications in any scoring system. Conclusion: Although nomograms were successful in predicting postoperative stone-free status (SFS) after PNL in abnormal kidneys, they may not predict postoperative complications.\",\"PeriodicalId\":33497,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Scripta Medica\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Scripta Medica\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5937/scriptamed54-43096\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scripta Medica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5937/scriptamed54-43096","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景/目的:欧洲泌尿外科指南推荐经皮肾镜取石术(PNL)作为一种治疗方式,以去除大小超过2厘米的复杂肾结石。本研究的目的是比较结石评分系统在预测异常肾脏经皮肾镜取石术(PNL)后无结石状态和并发症发生率方面的作用。方法:回顾性分析2017年1月至2022年1月在临床行肾结石PNL的94例解剖异常患者的资料。64例肾异常行PNL的患者被纳入研究。Guy、S.T.O.N.E.和CROES肾结石测量评分由同一研究人员使用非对比计算机断层扫描对每位患者进行评估。采用改良的Clavien分级系统评价并发症。结果:患者的平均年龄和体重指数(BMI)分别为46±11.7和28±6 kg/m2。两组在手术参数、肾异常分类及并发症方面无差异。与残石组相比,GSS (2.49 vs 3.03;p = 0.001)和S.T.O.N.E.评分(7.26 vs 8.38;p = 0.021),无结石组的CROES评分有统计学意义较低,结石残留组的CROES评分较低(172比245;P < 0.001)。在Clavien并发症评分和结石评分系统之间进行的卡方分析中,没有发现任何评分系统成功预测并发症的存在。结论:虽然x线图能成功预测异常肾脏PNL术后无结石状态(SFS),但不能预测术后并发症。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparison of stone scoring systems as predictive tools for percutaneous nephrolithotomy outcome in kidneys with anatomical abnormalities: A retrospective study
Background/Aim: European urology guidelines recommend percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PNL) as a treatment modality to remove complex kidney stones over 2 cm in size. Aim of this study was to compare stone scoring systems in predicting stone-free status and complications rate after percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PNL) in abnormal kidneys. Methods: Retrospective analysis of data from 94 patients with anatomical abnormalities who underwent PNL for the kidney stones in the Clinic between January 2017 and January 2022 was performed. Sixty-four patients with renal anomalies who underwent PNL were included in the study. Guy, S.T.O.N.E. and CROES nephrolitometry scores were evaluated for each patient by the same researcher using non-contrast computed tomography. The modified Clavien grading system was used to evaluate complications. Results: The mean age and body mass index (BMI) of the patients were 46 ± 11.7 and 28 ± 6 kg/m2, respectively. There was no differences between the groups in terms of operative parameters, renal anomaly categorisation and complications. Compared with the residual stone group, GSS (2.49 vs 3.03; p = 0.001) and S.T.O.N.E. scores (7.26 vs 8.38; p = 0.021) in the stone free group were statistically significantly lower, while the CROES score was lower in the group with residual stones (172 vs 245; p < 0.001). In the Chi-square analysis performed between Clavien complication rating and stone scoring systems, no success was found in predicting the presence of complications in any scoring system. Conclusion: Although nomograms were successful in predicting postoperative stone-free status (SFS) after PNL in abnormal kidneys, they may not predict postoperative complications.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
13
审稿时长
4 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信