Ureteral stent encrustation: evaluation of available scores as predictors of a complex surgery.


Journal

Minerva urology and nephrology
ISSN: 2724-6442
Titre abrégé: Minerva Urol Nephrol
Pays: Italy
ID NLM: 101777299

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Jun 2023
Historique:
medline: 25 5 2023
pubmed: 27 10 2022
entrez: 26 10 2022
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Stent encrustation is an uncommon event (13%) with a significant impact in patients' management. Aim of our study was to evaluate the available grading systems for encrusted stents. A retrospective analysis of encrusted stents was performed in four Italian centers between 2006 and 2020. Encrusted stents were classified according to four classifications: the Forgotten Encrusted Calcificated (FECal) Score, the Kidney Ureter Bladder (KUB) Score, the Visual Grading for Ureteral Encrusted Stent Classification and the Encrustation Burden Score (EBS). Classifications were evaluated to predict complex surgery defined as: long operative time (>60 min), need of more than one surgery, and need of a percutaneous approach. The scores were compared with receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis as predictors of complex surgery. Seventy-seven patients were evaluated with a median age of 62 years (65/70). Overall FECal score >2 was present in 45/77 (58%) patients, median KUB score was 9 (6/14) and severe EBS was found in 47/77 (63%) patients. Patients were managed with cyst lithotripsy in 13/77 (17%), with ureteroscopy in 58/77 (75%) and with percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) in 6/77 (8%). Overall, 6/77 (8%) patients required a second intervention to remove the encrusted stent. All classifications predicted the need of complex surgery. On ROC analysis KUB score presented a better accuracy in predicting complex surgery compared to FECal, V-GUES and encrusted burden. KUB score, FECal score, V-GUES score, and encrustation burden accurately predict the need of a complex surgery. KUB showed to be superior to other classifications according to our results.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Stent encrustation is an uncommon event (13%) with a significant impact in patients' management. Aim of our study was to evaluate the available grading systems for encrusted stents.
METHODS METHODS
A retrospective analysis of encrusted stents was performed in four Italian centers between 2006 and 2020. Encrusted stents were classified according to four classifications: the Forgotten Encrusted Calcificated (FECal) Score, the Kidney Ureter Bladder (KUB) Score, the Visual Grading for Ureteral Encrusted Stent Classification and the Encrustation Burden Score (EBS). Classifications were evaluated to predict complex surgery defined as: long operative time (>60 min), need of more than one surgery, and need of a percutaneous approach. The scores were compared with receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis as predictors of complex surgery.
RESULTS RESULTS
Seventy-seven patients were evaluated with a median age of 62 years (65/70). Overall FECal score >2 was present in 45/77 (58%) patients, median KUB score was 9 (6/14) and severe EBS was found in 47/77 (63%) patients. Patients were managed with cyst lithotripsy in 13/77 (17%), with ureteroscopy in 58/77 (75%) and with percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) in 6/77 (8%). Overall, 6/77 (8%) patients required a second intervention to remove the encrusted stent. All classifications predicted the need of complex surgery. On ROC analysis KUB score presented a better accuracy in predicting complex surgery compared to FECal, V-GUES and encrusted burden.
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
KUB score, FECal score, V-GUES score, and encrustation burden accurately predict the need of a complex surgery. KUB showed to be superior to other classifications according to our results.

Identifiants

pubmed: 36286398
pii: S2724-6051.22.04999-0
doi: 10.23736/S2724-6051.22.04999-0
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

359-365

Commentaires et corrections

Type : CommentIn

Auteurs

Antonio Cicione (A)

Department of Urology, Sant'Andrea Hospital, Sapienza University, Rome, Italy.

Jordi Stira (J)

Department of Urology, Sant'Andrea Hospital, Sapienza University, Rome, Italy.

Giorgia Tema (G)

Department of Urology, Sant'Andrea Hospital, Sapienza University, Rome, Italy.

Antonio Franco (A)

Department of Urology, Sant'Andrea Hospital, Sapienza University, Rome, Italy.

Nicola Ghezzo (N)

Department of Urology, Sant'Andrea Hospital, Sapienza University, Rome, Italy.

Carmen Gravina (C)

Department of Urology, Sant'Andrea Hospital, Sapienza University, Rome, Italy.

Giacomo Gallo (G)

Department of Urology, Sant'Andrea Hospital, Sapienza University, Rome, Italy.

Riccardo Lombardo (R)

Department of Urology, Sant'Andrea Hospital, Sapienza University, Rome, Italy.

Pietro Spatafora (P)

Department of Urology, Careggi Hospital, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.

Lorenzo Verdelli (L)

Department of Urology, Careggi Hospital, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.

Mauro Gacci (M)

Department of Urology, Careggi Hospital, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.

Yazan Al Salhi (Y)

Department of Urology, ICOT, Sapienza University, Rome, Italy.

Andrea Fuschi (A)

Department of Urology, ICOT, Sapienza University, Rome, Italy.

Francesco Sommatino (F)

Department of Urology, University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy.

Alchiede Simonato (A)

Department of Urology, University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy.

Antonio Nacchia (A)

Department of Urology, Sant'Andrea Hospital, Sapienza University, Rome, Italy.

Antonio L Pastore (AL)

Department of Urology, ICOT, Sapienza University, Rome, Italy.

Sergio Serni (S)

Department of Urology, Careggi Hospital, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.

Antonio Carbone (A)

Department of Urology, ICOT, Sapienza University, Rome, Italy.

Andrea Tubaro (A)

Department of Urology, Sant'Andrea Hospital, Sapienza University, Rome, Italy.

Cosimo DE Nunzio (C)

Department of Urology, Sant'Andrea Hospital, Sapienza University, Rome, Italy - cosimodenunzio@virgilio.it.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH