Cargando…
Computational Analysis of Influencing Factors and Multiple Scoring Systems of Stone Clearance Rate after Flexible Ureteroscopic Lithotripsy
Our research aims at the analysis of various stone scoring systems which are referred to as STONE scoring system (SSS) in this study. GUY's scoring system and RUSS scoring system (RSS) are utilized to predict stone-free status (SFS) after surgery and problems after percutaneous nephrolithotomy...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Hindawi
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9529465/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36199957 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2022/7879819 |
Sumario: | Our research aims at the analysis of various stone scoring systems which are referred to as STONE scoring system (SSS) in this study. GUY's scoring system and RUSS scoring system (RSS) are utilized to predict stone-free status (SFS) after surgery and problems after percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) for harder stones. The data of 68 patients with renal calculi who received FURL in Ren Ji Hospital from Jan 2020 to Mar 2021 are collected as the study subjects. There were 44 male and 24 female patients, with an average age of 55.6 ± 11.4 years. Reliability analysis of related influencing factors (IF) of stone clearance rate (SCR) and multiple scoring systems after flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy (FURL) was performed. Relevant factors with statistical significance for postoperative SCR were selected for logistic regression analysis (RA). According to the SSS score, GSS classification, and RUSS score, the SCR after FURL was statistically analyzed. The results showed that the P values corresponding to stone position (lower caliceal), cumulative stone diameter (CSD), urinary tract infection, and external physical vibration lithecbole (EPVL) were less than 0.05. The area under the ROC curve of RUSS score, SSS score, and GSS grading was 0.932, 0.841, and 0.533, respectively. The main IF of SCR after FURL were stone location (lower caliceal), CSD, urinary tract infection, and EPVL. The RUSS score system was the best in the evaluation of SCR after FURL. In the previous research, the score systems such as CROES (CRS), SSS, S-ReS, C, and GSS for the prediction of SFS were compared. In our analysis, we have compared the RUSS scoring system which has proven to be giving better results as compared to SSS and GSS. We also performed the regression analysis and found that the stone location shows the strongest correlation of all the other factors for stone clearing rate. |
---|