Reinforcement of the Triple D score with simple addition of the intrarenal location for the prediction of the stone-free rate after shockwave lithotripsy for renal stones 10-20 mm in diameter.
Lower pole
Renal stone
Shockwave lithotripsy
Triple D score
Journal
International urology and nephrology
ISSN: 1573-2584
Titre abrégé: Int Urol Nephrol
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 0262521
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Feb 2019
Feb 2019
Historique:
received:
27
10
2018
accepted:
24
12
2018
pubmed:
4
1
2019
medline:
8
6
2019
entrez:
4
1
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
We investigated the clinical efficacy of the Triple D score (TrD-S) on stone-free rate (SFR) prediction following shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) for renal stones 10-20 mm in diameter and modified the scoring system to improve outcome prediction. We retrospectively examined clinical data from the medical records of 226 consecutive patients who underwent SWL for 10-20 mm kidney stones. The TrD-S was calculated according to the cutoffs of < 150 mm The residual group (n = 102) had significantly older age, larger stones, higher stone density, higher lower-pole stone incidence, and lower TrD-S than the stone-free group (n = 124). In the multivariate analysis, age, TrD-S, and non-lower-pole stones independently predicted the SFR. The TrD-Ss of 0, 1, 2, and 3 points showed SFRs of 40.0%, 51.9%, 73.0%, and 100.0%, respectively. The Quadruple D scores of 0, 1, 2, 3, and 4 points showed SFRs of 0.0%, 37.9%, 54.5%, 84.4%, and 100.0%, respectively, with better prediction accuracy than the TrD-S (p = 0.01). The TrD-S is successfully validated for use in Japanese patients with 10-20-mm renal stones. Simple addition of the stone location to the TrD-S could reinforce SFR prediction after SWL.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30604235
doi: 10.1007/s11255-018-02066-1
pii: 10.1007/s11255-018-02066-1
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Validation Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
239-245Références
Circ J. 2002 Nov;66(11):987-92
pubmed: 12419927
J Urol. 2003 May;169(5):1679-81
pubmed: 12686807
Scand J Urol Nephrol. 2003;37(5):413-8
pubmed: 14594691
Scand J Urol Nephrol. 2004;38(2):161-7
pubmed: 15204407
J Urol. 2004 Dec;172(6 Pt 1):2271-4
pubmed: 15538247
J Urol. 2005 Jan;173(1):127-30
pubmed: 15592053
Urology. 2005 Jan;65(1):33-6
pubmed: 15667858
BJU Int. 2005 Nov;96(7):1145
pubmed: 16225548
Urology. 2005 Nov;66(5):941-4
pubmed: 16286099
J Urol. 2006 Oct;176(4 Pt 1):1453-6; discussion 1456-7
pubmed: 16952658
Aging Male. 2006 Sep;9(3):171-4
pubmed: 17020872
Eur Urol. 2007 Jun;51(6):1688-93; discussion 1693-4
pubmed: 17161522
Scand J Urol Nephrol. 2007;41(4):316-23
pubmed: 17763224
Urology. 2008 Oct;72(4):765-9
pubmed: 18674803
J Urol. 2009 Mar;181(3):1151-7
pubmed: 19152949
J Endourol. 2009 Jun;23(6):891-7
pubmed: 19441881
J Urol. 2011 Aug;186(2):556-62
pubmed: 21684557
Can J Urol. 2012 Dec;19(6):6554-9
pubmed: 23228291
J Endourol. 2015 Feb;29(2):226-30
pubmed: 25046472
Urolithiasis. 2015 Oct;43(5):419-26
pubmed: 25981235
Eur Urol. 2016 Mar;69(3):475-82
pubmed: 26344917
PLoS One. 2016 Feb 18;11(2):e0149333
pubmed: 26890006
J Urol. 2016 Oct;196(4):1161-9
pubmed: 27238615
J Endourol. 2016 Sep;30(9):1009-16
pubmed: 27392789
J Endourol. 2017 Feb;31(2):169-173
pubmed: 27889982
J Urol. 2018 May;199(5):1267-1271
pubmed: 29221932
BMC Urol. 2018 Apr 10;18(1):25
pubmed: 29636048
J Urol. 1988 May;139(5):1124-7
pubmed: 3361657