Cargando…

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

OBJECTIVE: (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]...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Srivastava, Aneesh, Yadav, Priyank, Madhavan, Kumar, Sureka, Sanjoy K., Singh, Uday P., Kapoor, Rakesh, Ansari, M.S., Lal, Hira, Mishra, Prabhakar
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Taylor & Francis 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7473116/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33029417
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/2090598X.2019.1703278
_version_ 1783579120121151488
author Srivastava, Aneesh
Yadav, Priyank
Madhavan, Kumar
Sureka, Sanjoy K.
Singh, Uday P.
Kapoor, Rakesh
Ansari, M.S.
Lal, Hira
Mishra, Prabhakar
author_facet Srivastava, Aneesh
Yadav, Priyank
Madhavan, Kumar
Sureka, Sanjoy K.
Singh, Uday P.
Kapoor, Rakesh
Ansari, M.S.
Lal, Hira
Mishra, Prabhakar
author_sort Srivastava, Aneesh
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: (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, SUBJECTS AND METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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). CONCLUSION: 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. ABBREVIATIONS: 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]
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7473116
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Taylor & Francis
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-74731162020-10-06 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 Srivastava, Aneesh Yadav, Priyank Madhavan, Kumar Sureka, Sanjoy K. Singh, Uday P. Kapoor, Rakesh Ansari, M.S. Lal, Hira Mishra, Prabhakar Arab J Urol Stones/Endourology OBJECTIVE: (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, SUBJECTS AND METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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). CONCLUSION: 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. ABBREVIATIONS: 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] Taylor & Francis 2019-12-18 /pmc/articles/PMC7473116/ /pubmed/33029417 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/2090598X.2019.1703278 Text en © 2019 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Stones/Endourology
Srivastava, Aneesh
Yadav, Priyank
Madhavan, Kumar
Sureka, Sanjoy K.
Singh, Uday P.
Kapoor, Rakesh
Ansari, M.S.
Lal, Hira
Mishra, Prabhakar
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
title 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
title_full 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
title_fullStr 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
title_full_unstemmed 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
title_short 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
title_sort 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
topic Stones/Endourology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7473116/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33029417
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/2090598X.2019.1703278
work_keys_str_mv AT srivastavaaneesh interobservervariabilityamongstsurgeonsandradiologistsinassessmentofguysstonescoreandstonenephrolithometryscoreaprospectiveevaluation
AT yadavpriyank interobservervariabilityamongstsurgeonsandradiologistsinassessmentofguysstonescoreandstonenephrolithometryscoreaprospectiveevaluation
AT madhavankumar interobservervariabilityamongstsurgeonsandradiologistsinassessmentofguysstonescoreandstonenephrolithometryscoreaprospectiveevaluation
AT surekasanjoyk interobservervariabilityamongstsurgeonsandradiologistsinassessmentofguysstonescoreandstonenephrolithometryscoreaprospectiveevaluation
AT singhudayp interobservervariabilityamongstsurgeonsandradiologistsinassessmentofguysstonescoreandstonenephrolithometryscoreaprospectiveevaluation
AT kapoorrakesh interobservervariabilityamongstsurgeonsandradiologistsinassessmentofguysstonescoreandstonenephrolithometryscoreaprospectiveevaluation
AT ansarims interobservervariabilityamongstsurgeonsandradiologistsinassessmentofguysstonescoreandstonenephrolithometryscoreaprospectiveevaluation
AT lalhira interobservervariabilityamongstsurgeonsandradiologistsinassessmentofguysstonescoreandstonenephrolithometryscoreaprospectiveevaluation
AT mishraprabhakar interobservervariabilityamongstsurgeonsandradiologistsinassessmentofguysstonescoreandstonenephrolithometryscoreaprospectiveevaluation