Abstract
Abstract
Purpose
To assess how accurate are urologists in predicting stone-free status (SFS) after vacuum-assisted mini-PCNL (vamPCNL) compared to computed tomography (CT) and clinical predictors of discordant SFS.
Methods
Data from 235 patients who underwent vamPCNL were analysed. Patient’s demographics, stones’ characteristics and operative data were recorded. SFS was evaluated intraoperatively by the treating urologist (iSFS) and with non-contrast CT 3 months after vamPCNL (ctSFS). SFS was defined as no residual stones. Stone complexity was scored with the Guy’s score. Descriptive statistics and logistic regression models were used to identify clinical factors associated with discordant SFS (namely iSFS not confirmed at CT).
Results
iSFS and ctSFS were 88.5% and 65.5%, respectively, with 54 (23%) cases resulting in discordant evaluation of SFS between the surgeon and CT imaging. Patients with discordant SFS had larger stone volume (p < 0.001), higher rate of multiple stones (p = 0.03) and higher rate of multiple calyceal groups affected by stones (p < 0.001) than those with concordant SFS. The use of flexible ureteroscopes to look for residual stones after lithotripsy was more frequently reported in cases with concordant SFS (p = 0.001). Multivariable logistic regression analysis revealed that stones in > 2 calyceal groups (OR 10.2, p < 0.001), Guy’s score II (OR 5.8, p < 0.01) and not using flexible ureteroscopes after lithotripsy (OR 2.9, p = 0.02) were independent predictors of discordant SFS.
Conclusion
One out of five patients is erroneously considered SF after vamPCNL. Urologist should carefully evaluate patients with multiple calyceal stones and consider using flexible ureteroscopes to complete lapaxy of migrated fragments in order to improve their prediction of SFS.
Funder
Università degli Studi di Milano
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference38 articles.
1. Viljoen A, Chaudhry R, Bycroft J (2019) Renal stones. Ann Clin Biochem 56:15–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/0004563218781672
2. Romero V, Akpinar H, Assimos DG (2010) Kidney stones: a global picture of prevalence, incidence, and associated risk factors. Rev Urol 12:e86-96
3. Türk C, Neisius A, Petřík A, Seitz C, Skolarikos A, Somani B, Thomas K, Gambaro G, Davis NF, Donaldson JF, Lombardo R, Tzelves L. EAU Guidelines on Urolithiasis. Available at: https://uroweb.org/wp-content/uploads/EAU-Guidelines-on-Urolithiasis-2021-V2-1.pdf. Accessed Febrauary 18th, 2022. n.d.
4. Han DS, Cher BAY, Lee D, Rajendran S, Riblet NBV, Pais VM (2019) The durability of active surveillance in patients with asymptomatic kidney stones: a systematic review. J Endourol 33:598–605. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2018.0695
5. Chung DY, Kang DH, Cho KS, Jeong WS, Jung HD, Kwon JK et al (2019) Comparison of stone-free rates following shock wave lithotripsy, percutaneous nephrolithotomy, and retrograde intrarenal surgery for treatment of renal stones: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 14:e0211316. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211316