Author:
Wei Bingjian,Fu Yang,Ma Aidi,Hong Li,Wang Yunyan,Gu Shuo,Ji Lu
Abstract
Abstract
Objective
Develop a mesh model to define a new “index amount of stone” to evaluate calculus and predict lithotripsy time.
Methods
The stones were divided into target units with diameter of 5 mm by the mesh from x, y and z directions, and the cross-sectional areas between units were calculated as amount of stone as a new index to evaluate calculus. Design a prospective study with 112 cases of percutaneous nephrolithotomy to verify the reliability of this index, and to compare the accuracy of the quantity, volume and maximum diameter of stones in predicting the time of lithotripsy.
Results
Amount of stone (Q) is reliable. The lithotripsy time was significantly correlated with the amount of stone, volume and maximum diameter of the stone (p < 0.01). The three regression equations were valid. The linear fit in the amount group was larger than that in the volume group, and further larger than that in the maximum diameter group, with R2 values of 0.716, 0.661 and 0.471, respectively.
Conclusions
It is more accurate and convenient to use amount of stone to evaluate calculus, which can be used to predict the lithotripsy time.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference20 articles.
1. Sorokin I, Mamoulakis C et al (2017) Epidemiology of stone disease across the world. World J Urol 35(9):1301–1320
2. Tuik AN, Petrik A, Seitz C et al. (2020) EAU guidelines on urolithiasis. EAU guidelines. Edn. In: Presented at the EAU annual congress, Amsterdam
3. Assimos D, Krambeck A, Miller NL et al (2016) Surgical management of stones: American Urological Association/Endourological Society guideline, part II. J Urol 196:1153–1160
4. De Coninck V, Traxer O (2018) The time has come to report stone burden in terms of volume instead of largest diameter. J Endourol 32:265–266
5. Ozgor F, Simsek A, Binbay M et al (2014) Clinically insignificant residual fragments after flexible ureterorenoscopy: medium-term follow-up results. Urolithiasis 42(6):533–538