Outcome groups and a practical tool to predict success of shock wave lithotripsy in daily clinical routine
- PMID: 32436072
- DOI: 10.1007/s00345-020-03253-5
Outcome groups and a practical tool to predict success of shock wave lithotripsy in daily clinical routine
Abstract
Purpose: To improve outcome prediction of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) by development of a model based on easily available clinical and radiographical predictors and suitable for daily clinical use.
Materials and methods: We evaluated predictive factors for SWL success in 517 consecutive patients suffering from urinary calculi who underwent SWL between 2010 and 2018. Analyses included descriptive statistics, receiver operating characteristic statistics and logistic regression. Predictive value was improved by combining parameters using model selection and recursive partitioning.
Results: Of the 517 patients, 310 (60.0%) had a successful SWL. Best individual predictor of SWL success was mean attenuation (MAV), with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.668, and an optimal cutpoint (OC) of 987.5 HU. The best multivariable model, including MAV, stone size, skin to stone distance (SSD), presence of an indwelling stent, and four interaction effects, yielded an AUC of 0.736. Recursive partitioning would categorize patients into three outcome groups with high (76.9%), intermediate (41%) and low (10%) success probability. High probability of SWL success (76.9%) was found for patients with a stone with MAV ≤ 987 HU or with MAV > 987 HU but stone size ≤ 11 mm and SSD (45°) ≤ 88 mm.
Conclusion: A model based on four established predictors, and provided as an Excel®-Tool, can clearly improve prediction of SWL success. In addition, patients can be classified into three defined outcome groups based on simple cutpoint combinations. Both tools improve informed decision-making in daily clinical practice and might reduce failure rates.
Keywords: Calculator; Hounsfield units; Mean attenuation value; Predictor; Shock wave lithotripsy; Urinary calculi.
Comment in
-
Predict success of shock wave lithotripsy was still interesting and challenging.World J Urol. 2022 May;40(5):1261-1262. doi: 10.1007/s00345-021-03758-7. Epub 2021 Jun 16. World J Urol. 2022. PMID: 34136946 No abstract available.
References
-
- Zumstein V, Betschart P, Abt D, Schmid HP, Panje CM, Putora PM (2018) Surgical management of urolithiasis—a systematic analysis of available guidelines. BMC Urol 18(1):25 - DOI
-
- Surgical Treatments Intervention Evidence Review: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (2019) https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng118/evidence/f-surgical-treatments-pd...
-
- El-Nahas AR, El-Assmy AM, Mansour O, Sheir KZ (2007) A prospective multivariate analysis of factors predicting stone disintegration by extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: the value of high-resolution noncontrast computed tomography. Eur Urol 51(6):1688–1693 (discussion 93-4) - DOI
-
- Torricelli FC, Marchini GS, Yamauchi FI, Danilovic A, Vicentini FC, Srougi M et al (2015) Impact of renal anatomy on shock wave lithotripsy outcomes for lower pole kidney stones: results of a prospective multifactorial analysis controlled by computerized tomography. J Urol 193(6):2002–2007 - DOI
-
- Cui HW, Devlies W, Ravenscroft S, Heers H, Freidin AJ, Cleveland RO et al (2017) CT texture analysis of ex vivo renal stones predicts ease of fragmentation with shockwave lithotripsy. J Endourol 31(7):694–700 - DOI
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources