Inter-observer variability amongst surgeons and radiologists in assessment of Guy's Stone Score and S.T.O.N.E. nephrolithometry score: A prospective evaluation.

Guy’s Stone Score Inter-observer variability S.T.O.N.E. nephrolithometry score

Journal

Arab journal of urology
ISSN: 2090-598X
Titre abrégé: Arab J Urol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101562480

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
18 Dec 2019
Historique:
entrez: 8 10 2020
pubmed: 9 10 2020
medline: 9 10 2020
Statut: epublish

Résumé

(a) To assess the inter-observer variability amongst surgeons performing percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) and radiologists for the Guy's Stone Score (GSS) and S.T.O.N.E. (stone size [S], tract length [T], obstruction [O], number of involved calyces [N], and essence or stone density [E]) nephrolithometry score; (b) To determine which scoring system of the two is better for predicting the stone-free rate (SFR) after PCNL. Patients undergoing PCNL between February 2016 and September 2016 were prospectively enrolled. Preoperative computed tomography was done in all patients. The GSS and S.T.O.N.E. nephrolithometry score were independently calculated by eight surgeons and four radiologists. The patients were operated on by one of the surgeons (all were consultants). The Fleiss' κ coefficient was used to assess agreement independently between the surgeons and radiologists. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were constructed for predicting the SFR using the average of the scores of the surgeons and radiologists separately. A total of 157 patients underwent PCNL. The SFR was 71.3% (112/157 patients). The Fleiss' κ scores ranged from 0.51 to 0.88 (overall 0.79) for the S.T.O.N.E. score and 0.53-0.91 for the GSS, suggesting moderate to very good agreement. The ROC curve for the S.T.O.N.E. nephrolithometry scores of surgeons (area under the curve [AUC] = 0.806) as well as the radiologists (AUC = 0.810) had a higher predictive value for the SFR than the GSS of the surgeons (AUC = 0.738) and the radiologists (AUC = 0.747). There is overall good agreement between surgeons and radiologists for both the GSS and S.T.O.N.E. nephrolithometry score. The S.T.O.N.E. score had a higher predictive value for the SFR than the GSS. AUC: area under the curve; GSS: Guy's Stone Score; KUB: kidneys, ureters and bladder; NCCT: non-contrast CT; PCNL: Percutaneous nephrolithotomy; ROC: receiver operating characteristic; SFR: stone-free rate; S.T.O.N.E.: stone size [S], tract length [T], obstruction [O], number of involved calyces [N], and essence or stone density [E].

Identifiants

pubmed: 33029417
doi: 10.1080/2090598X.2019.1703278
pii: 1703278
pmc: PMC7473116
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

118-123

Informations de copyright

© 2019 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Références

Nat Rev Urol. 2017 Aug;14(8):459-469
pubmed: 28534536
Biochem Med (Zagreb). 2012;22(3):276-82
pubmed: 23092060
Urology. 2014 Jan;83(1):45-9
pubmed: 24210568
J Endourol. 2015 Oct;29(10):1131-5
pubmed: 25936386
Indian J Urol. 2012 Oct;28(4):392-8
pubmed: 23450640
Urology. 2011 Aug;78(2):277-81
pubmed: 21333334
Urology. 2015 Jan;85(1):69-73
pubmed: 25530366
J Urol. 2008 Oct;180(4 Suppl):1680-2; discussion1682-3
pubmed: 18708207
Urology. 2014 Jun;83(6):1248-53
pubmed: 24612615
Urolithiasis. 2015 Aug;43(4):349-53
pubmed: 25850962
J Endourol. 2015 Sep;29(9):1006-10
pubmed: 26153844
J Endourol. 2013 Oct;27(10):1303-6
pubmed: 23815088
World J Urol. 2015 Nov;33(11):1821-5
pubmed: 25678344
PLoS One. 2014 Jan 08;9(1):e83628
pubmed: 24421896
J Urol. 2008 Aug;180(2):548-52; discussion 552-3
pubmed: 18550106
Urology. 2013 Jun;81(6):1154-9
pubmed: 23540858
Biometrics. 1988 Sep;44(3):837-45
pubmed: 3203132
BJU Int. 2011 Sep;108(6):896-9; discussion 899-900
pubmed: 21477212
J Urol. 2013 Jul;190(1):149-56
pubmed: 23353048
PLoS One. 2013 Jun 18;8(6):e65888
pubmed: 23824752
Can Urol Assoc J. 2015 May-Jun;9(5-6):190-5
pubmed: 26225168
J Urol. 2015 Jan;193(1):154-9
pubmed: 25088952
J Endourol. 2016 May;30(5):594-601
pubmed: 26728427
Cent European J Urol. 2015;68(3):353-7
pubmed: 26568881
Arab J Urol. 2017 Jan 12;15(1):7-16
pubmed: 28275512

Auteurs

Aneesh Srivastava (A)

Department of Urology and Renal Transplantation, Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow, India.

Priyank Yadav (P)

Department of Urology and Renal Transplantation, Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow, India.

Kumar Madhavan (K)

Department of Urology and Renal Transplantation, Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow, India.

Sanjoy K Sureka (SK)

Department of Urology and Renal Transplantation, Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow, India.

Uday P Singh (UP)

Department of Urology and Renal Transplantation, Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow, India.

Rakesh Kapoor (R)

Department of Urology and Renal Transplantation, Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow, India.

M S Ansari (MS)

Department of Urology and Renal Transplantation, Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow, India.

Hira Lal (H)

Department of Radiology, Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow, India.

Prabhakar Mishra (P)

Department of Biostatistics, Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow, India.

Classifications MeSH