Development of a new scoring system predicting medical expulsive therapy success on 4-10 mm distal ureteral stones: medical expulsive therapy stone score (METSS).
Distal ureteral stone
METSS
Medical expulsive therapy
Journal
Urolithiasis
ISSN: 2194-7236
Titre abrégé: Urolithiasis
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 101602699
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
28 Nov 2023
28 Nov 2023
Historique:
received:
28
08
2023
accepted:
04
11
2023
medline:
29
11
2023
pubmed:
28
11
2023
entrez:
28
11
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Ureteral stone passage by using medical expulsive therapy (MET) are affected by numerous radiological and clinical parameters. We aimed to construct a scoring system, which would be based on clinical and computed tomography (CT)-derived data, to predict the success of the MET approach. 186 patients presenting to urology clinic or emergency department with unilateral single 4-10 mm distal ureteral stone and who had MET were included. All patients were divided into two groups as the MET-successful group and the MET-unsuccessful group. The success rate of MET was 67.2%. Stone size ≥ 6.5 mm, stone density > 1078 HU, ureteral wall thickness (UWT) > 2.31 mm, ureteral diameter (UD) > 9.24 mm, presence of periureteral stranding (PUS) and presence of diabetes mellitus (DM) were stated as the independent risk factors. Based on the regression coefficients on multivariate logistic regression analysis, 1 point for stone size > 6.5 mm, 2 points for stone density > 1078 HU, 2 points for UWT > 2.31 mm, 3 points for UD > 9.24 mm, 1 point for presence of PUS and 1 point for presence of DM were assigned to patients for each risk factor. Higher medical expulsive therapy stone score (METSS) indicated lower MET success. All patients were classified into three risk groups according to METSS: low risk (0-3 points; success percentage: 92.8%); intermediate risk (4-5 points; success percentage: 60.4%) and high risk (6-10 points; success percentage: 8.3%). The METSS seems to separate successfully the patients with a favorable or adverse constellation of factors.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38015235
doi: 10.1007/s00240-023-01504-9
pii: 10.1007/s00240-023-01504-9
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
8Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.
Références
Lang J, Narendrula A, El-Zawahry A et al (2022) Global trends in incidence and burden of urolithiasis from 1990 to 2019: an analysis of global burden of disease study data. Eur Urol Open Sci 35:37–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euros.2021.10.008
doi: 10.1016/j.euros.2021.10.008
pubmed: 35024630
pmcid: 8738898
EAU guidelines. Edn. presented at the EAU annual congress, Milan 2023. EAU Guidelines Office, Arnhem, The Netherlands. http://uroweb.org/guidelines/compilations-of-all-guidelines/
Assimos D, Krambeck A, Miller NL et al (2016) Surgical management of stones: american urological association/endourological society guideline, PART II. J Urol 196(4):1161–1169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2016.05.091
doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2016.05.091
pubmed: 27238615
Campschroer T, Zhu X, Vernooij RW et al (2018) Alpha-blockers as medical expulsive therapy for ureteral stones. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 4(4):CD008509. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD008509.pub3
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD008509.pub3
pubmed: 29620795
Portis AJ, Portis JL, Borofsky MS et al (2019) Beyond medical expulsive therapy: evolution to supported stone passage for ureteric stones. BJU Int 123(4):661–668. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.14491
doi: 10.1111/bju.14491
pubmed: 30019368
Sharma G, Pareek T, Kaundal P et al (2022) Comparison of efficacy of three commonly used alpha-blockers as medical expulsive therapy for distal ureter stones: A systematic review and network meta-analysis. Int Braz J Urol 48:742–759. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2020.0548
doi: 10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2020.0548
pubmed: 34003612
Liu H, Wang S, Zhu W et al (2020) Comparative efficacy of 22 drug interventions as medical expulsive therapy for ureteral stones: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Urolithiasis 48:447–457. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-019-01159-5
doi: 10.1007/s00240-019-01159-5
pubmed: 31511921
Lim I, Sellers DJ, Chess-Williams R (2022) Current and emerging pharmacological targets for medical expulsive therapy. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol 130:16–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/bcpt.13613
doi: 10.1111/bcpt.13613
pubmed: 33991399
De Coninck V, Antonelli J, Chew B et al (2019) Medical expulsive therapy for urinary stones: future trends and knowledge gaps. Eur Urol 76(5):658–666. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2019.07.053
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.07.053
pubmed: 31421941
Shah TT, Gao C, Peters M et al (2019) Factors associated with spontaneous stone passage in a contemporary cohort of patients presenting with acute ureteric colic: results from the Multi‐centre cohort study evaluating the role of Inflammatory Markers In patients presenting with acute ureteric Colic (MIMIC) study. BJU Int 124(3):504–513. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.14777
doi: 10.1111/bju.14777
pubmed: 31001912
Abou Heidar N, Labban M, Bustros G et al (2020) Inflammatory serum markers predicting spontaneous ureteral stone passage. Clin Exp Nephrol 24:277–283. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10157-019-01807-5
doi: 10.1007/s10157-019-01807-5
pubmed: 31705331
Selvi I, Baydilli N, Tokmak TT et al (2021) CT-related parameters and Framingham score as predictors of spontaneous passage of ureteral stones ≤ 10 mm: results from a prospective, observational, multicenter study. Urolithiasis 49(3):227–237. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-020-01214-6
doi: 10.1007/s00240-020-01214-6
pubmed: 32980972
Keller EX, De Coninck V, Audouin M et al (2019) Stone composition independently predicts stone size in 18,029 spontaneously passed stones. World J Urol 37:2493–2499. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-018-02627-0
doi: 10.1007/s00345-018-02627-0
pubmed: 30719571
Kachroo N, Jain R, Maskal S et al (2021) Can CT-based stone impaction markers augment the predictive ability of spontaneous stone passage? J Endourol 35(4):429–435. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2020.0645
doi: 10.1089/end.2020.0645
pubmed: 32883100
Reicherz A, Eltit F, Almutairi K et al (2023) Ureteral obstruction promotes ureteral inflammation and fibrosis. Eur Urol Focus 9(2):371–380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2022.09.014
doi: 10.1016/j.euf.2022.09.014
pubmed: 36244955
Abou Heidar N, Labban M, Najdi J et al (2021) Spontaneous ureteral stone passage: a novel and comprehensive nomogram. Minerva Urol Nephrol 74(1):102–109. https://doi.org/10.23736/S2724-6051.20.04125-9
doi: 10.23736/S2724-6051.20.04125-9
pubmed: 33439574
Abou Heidar N, Labban M, Nguyen D-D et al (2022) Does volume matter? Incorporating estimated stone volume in a nomogram to predict ureteral stone passage. Can Urol Assoc J 16(3):E150. https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.7364
doi: 10.5489/cuaj.7364
Gao C, Peters M, Kurver P et al (2022) Nomogram predicting the probability of spontaneous stone passage in patients presenting with acute ureteric colic. BJU Int 130(6):823–831. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.15839
doi: 10.1111/bju.15839
pubmed: 35762278
pmcid: 9796920
Özbir S, Can O, Atalay HA et al (2020) Formula for predicting the impaction of ureteral stones. Urolithiasis 48(4):353–360. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-019-01152-y
doi: 10.1007/s00240-019-01152-y
pubmed: 31378836
Wang C, Jin L, Zhao X et al (2021) Development and validation of a preoperative nomogram for predicting patients with impacted ureteral stone: a retrospective analysis. BMC Urol 21(1):1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12894-021-00904-6
doi: 10.1186/s12894-021-00904-6
pubmed: 33407372
pmcid: 7789616
Anastasiadis A, Koudonas A, Langas G et al (2023) Transforming urinary stone disease management by artificial intelligence-based methods: a comprehensive review. Asian J Urol 10(3):258–274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajur.2023.02.002
doi: 10.1016/j.ajur.2023.02.002
pubmed: 37538159
pmcid: 10394286