External validation of the S.T.O.N.E. nephrolithometry scoring system
Keywords:Percutaneous nephrolithotomy, validation studies, renal calculi, scoring method
Introduction: We perform external validation of the S.T.O.N.E. nephrolithometry scoring system for the preoperative assessment of percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) outcomes.
Methods: After obtaining institutional review board approval, all PCNLs performed from 2009 to 2013 at a tertiary referral centre were reviewed. The S.T.O.N.E. score was calculated and correlated with stone-free status, estimated blood loss (EBL), operative time, length of hospital stay (LOS), and postoperative complications.
Results: A total of 155 PCNLs were included, with 100 (64.5%) males and 55 (35.5%) females. The mean age was 54.9 ± 1.2 years (range: 17–85), with a mean body mass index of 26.9 ± 0.5 kg/m2 (range: 17.2–51). The mean S.T.O.N.E. score was 7.67 ± 0.1 (range: 5–12), with a mean stone size of 609.8 ± 48.4 mm2 (range: 250– 4030), a mean Hounsfield unit of 887.7 ± 25.3 (range: 222–1766), a mean tract length of 97.3 ± 1.9 mm (range: 53–175), a mean operative time of 100.1 ± 2.8 min (range: 60–240), and a mean LOS of 4.2 ± 0.3 days (range: 1–18). The overall stone-free rate after the primary procedure was 71.6%. The S.T.O.N.E. score significantly affected stone-free status (p = 0.001) and EBL (p = 0.003). There was significant correlation between the S.T.O.N.E. score and operative time (r = 0.4; p < 0.001) and LOS (r = 0.3; p = 0.001). Therefore, the higher the S.T.O.N.E. score, the longer the operative time, the higher the EBL, the longer the LOS, and the lower the chance of being stone-free. The overall complication rate after the primary procedure was 15.5%, which did not correlate with the S.T.O.N.E. score (p = 0.9).
Conclusion: Although this study externally validates the S.T.O.N.E. scoring system, its accuracy is comparable to stone size and number of involved calyces in predicting stone-free status post-PCNL.
How to Cite
You, the Author(s), assign your copyright in and to the Article to the Canadian Urological Association. This means that you may not, without the prior written permission of the CUA:
- Post the Article on any Web site
- Translate or authorize a translation of the Article
- Copy or otherwise reproduce the Article, in any format, beyond what is permitted under Canadian copyright law, or authorize others to do so
- Copy or otherwise reproduce portions of the Article, including tables and figures, beyond what is permitted under Canadian copyright law, or authorize others to do so.
The CUA encourages use for non-commercial educational purposes and will not unreasonably deny any such permission request.
You retain your moral rights in and to the Article. This means that the CUA may not assert its copyright in such a way that would negatively reflect on your reputation or your right to be associated with the Article.
The CUA also requires you to warrant the following:
- That you are the Author(s) and sole owner(s), that the Article is original and unpublished and that you have not previously assigned copyright or granted a licence to any other third party;
- That all individuals who have made a substantive contribution to the article are acknowledged;
- That the Article does not infringe any proprietary right of any third party and that you have received the permissions necessary to include the work of others in the Article; and
- That the Article does not libel or violate the privacy rights of any third party.