The Cumulated Stone Diameter: A Limited Tool for Stone Burden Estimation

Objective To compare the performance of the main methods used to estimate stone burden in order to improve and standardize preoperative evaluation of stone disease. Methods From January 2012 to June 2013, a series of consecutive retrograde intrarenal stone surgery was prospectively evaluated at a si...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Urology (Ridgewood, N.J.) N.J.), 2015-09, Vol.86 (3), p.477-481
Hauptverfasser: Merigot de Treigny, Olivier, Bou Nasr, Elie, Almont, Thierry, Tack, Ivan, Rischmann, Pascal, Soulié, Michel, Huyghe, Eric
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 481
container_issue 3
container_start_page 477
container_title Urology (Ridgewood, N.J.)
container_volume 86
creator Merigot de Treigny, Olivier
Bou Nasr, Elie
Almont, Thierry
Tack, Ivan
Rischmann, Pascal
Soulié, Michel
Huyghe, Eric
description Objective To compare the performance of the main methods used to estimate stone burden in order to improve and standardize preoperative evaluation of stone disease. Methods From January 2012 to June 2013, a series of consecutive retrograde intrarenal stone surgery was prospectively evaluated at a single institute. All patients had a pre- and postoperative CT scan. The stone burden was estimated using 3 methods: the cumulative stone diameter (M1), Ackermann's formula (M2), and the sphere formula (M3). The predictive value of the postoperative stone-free status of these methods was then compared. Results Overall (n = 142), the stone-free rate was 64%. The three methods (M1, M2, and M3) were all predictive of stone-free status for stones 20 mm ( P  = .0024 and .023). Using receiver operating characteristic curves, we found that areas under the curve were 0.73, 0.70, and 0.71 for stones below 20 mm and 0.53, 0.74, and 0.74 for stones above 20 mm for M1, M2, and M3, respectively. In multivariate analysis, M1 and M3 were both found to be independently associated with the stone-free status in the whole series ( P  
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.urology.2015.06.018
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1712522577</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>1_s2_0_S0090429515006111</els_id><sourcerecordid>1712522577</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c490t-cad1dbe03cda32d675715e69dab810cd836c20e3787be9213fb452c7d03586353</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkUFv1DAQhS0EotvCTwDlyCVhxlnbCQdQuy0UaSUOXc6WY8-ClyQudoK0_x5Hu3DgwmkO82bmzfcYe4VQIaB8e6jmGPrw7VhxQFGBrACbJ2yFgquybVvxlK0AWijXvBUX7DKlAwBIKdVzdsEl1qJBXLH73XcqNvMw92YiVzxMYaTi1puBJorviuti6we_dHYh9MU-xLPkZo6OxuIuTX4wkw_jC_Zsb_pEL8_1in39eLfb3JfbL58-b663pV23MJXWOHQdQW2dqbmTSigUJFtnugbBuqaWlgPVqlEdtRzrfbcW3CoH2bCsRX3F3pz2Psbwc6Y06cEnS31vRgpz0qiQC86FUlkqTlIbQ0qR9voxZrfxqBH0AlEf9BmiXiBqkDpDzHOvzyfmbiD3d-oPtSz4cBJQfvSXp6iT9TRacj6SnbQL_r8n3v-zwfZ-9Nb0P-hI6RDmOGaKGnXiGvTDkuQSJIqcIWYLvwG8AZl0</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1712522577</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>The Cumulated Stone Diameter: A Limited Tool for Stone Burden Estimation</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete</source><creator>Merigot de Treigny, Olivier ; Bou Nasr, Elie ; Almont, Thierry ; Tack, Ivan ; Rischmann, Pascal ; Soulié, Michel ; Huyghe, Eric</creator><creatorcontrib>Merigot de Treigny, Olivier ; Bou Nasr, Elie ; Almont, Thierry ; Tack, Ivan ; Rischmann, Pascal ; Soulié, Michel ; Huyghe, Eric</creatorcontrib><description>Objective To compare the performance of the main methods used to estimate stone burden in order to improve and standardize preoperative evaluation of stone disease. Methods From January 2012 to June 2013, a series of consecutive retrograde intrarenal stone surgery was prospectively evaluated at a single institute. All patients had a pre- and postoperative CT scan. The stone burden was estimated using 3 methods: the cumulative stone diameter (M1), Ackermann's formula (M2), and the sphere formula (M3). The predictive value of the postoperative stone-free status of these methods was then compared. Results Overall (n = 142), the stone-free rate was 64%. The three methods (M1, M2, and M3) were all predictive of stone-free status for stones &lt;20 mm ( P  = .0076, .018, and .016, respectively). However, only M2 and M3 were significant for stones &gt;20 mm ( P  = .0024 and .023). Using receiver operating characteristic curves, we found that areas under the curve were 0.73, 0.70, and 0.71 for stones below 20 mm and 0.53, 0.74, and 0.74 for stones above 20 mm for M1, M2, and M3, respectively. In multivariate analysis, M1 and M3 were both found to be independently associated with the stone-free status in the whole series ( P  &lt;.001 and .011, respectively). However, for stones above 20 mm, only M3 was significant ( P  = .020). Conclusion Evaluation of the stone burden is an important predictor of the outcome of retrograde intrarenal stone surgery. For stones below 20 mm, all the three methods approximate stone burden correctly; however, for the stones above 20 mm, calculation of volume is recommended.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0090-4295</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1527-9995</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2015.06.018</identifier><identifier>PMID: 26135811</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Adult ; Female ; Humans ; Kidney Calculi - pathology ; Kidney Calculi - surgery ; Male ; Mathematical Computing ; Middle Aged ; Patient Selection ; Predictive Value of Tests ; Prospective Studies ; ROC Curve ; Severity of Illness Index ; Tomography, X-Ray Computed ; Urology</subject><ispartof>Urology (Ridgewood, N.J.), 2015-09, Vol.86 (3), p.477-481</ispartof><rights>Elsevier Inc.</rights><rights>2015 Elsevier Inc.</rights><rights>Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c490t-cad1dbe03cda32d675715e69dab810cd836c20e3787be9213fb452c7d03586353</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c490t-cad1dbe03cda32d675715e69dab810cd836c20e3787be9213fb452c7d03586353</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2015.06.018$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,3550,27924,27925,45995</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26135811$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Merigot de Treigny, Olivier</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bou Nasr, Elie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Almont, Thierry</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tack, Ivan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rischmann, Pascal</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Soulié, Michel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Huyghe, Eric</creatorcontrib><title>The Cumulated Stone Diameter: A Limited Tool for Stone Burden Estimation</title><title>Urology (Ridgewood, N.J.)</title><addtitle>Urology</addtitle><description>Objective To compare the performance of the main methods used to estimate stone burden in order to improve and standardize preoperative evaluation of stone disease. Methods From January 2012 to June 2013, a series of consecutive retrograde intrarenal stone surgery was prospectively evaluated at a single institute. All patients had a pre- and postoperative CT scan. The stone burden was estimated using 3 methods: the cumulative stone diameter (M1), Ackermann's formula (M2), and the sphere formula (M3). The predictive value of the postoperative stone-free status of these methods was then compared. Results Overall (n = 142), the stone-free rate was 64%. The three methods (M1, M2, and M3) were all predictive of stone-free status for stones &lt;20 mm ( P  = .0076, .018, and .016, respectively). However, only M2 and M3 were significant for stones &gt;20 mm ( P  = .0024 and .023). Using receiver operating characteristic curves, we found that areas under the curve were 0.73, 0.70, and 0.71 for stones below 20 mm and 0.53, 0.74, and 0.74 for stones above 20 mm for M1, M2, and M3, respectively. In multivariate analysis, M1 and M3 were both found to be independently associated with the stone-free status in the whole series ( P  &lt;.001 and .011, respectively). However, for stones above 20 mm, only M3 was significant ( P  = .020). Conclusion Evaluation of the stone burden is an important predictor of the outcome of retrograde intrarenal stone surgery. For stones below 20 mm, all the three methods approximate stone burden correctly; however, for the stones above 20 mm, calculation of volume is recommended.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Kidney Calculi - pathology</subject><subject>Kidney Calculi - surgery</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Mathematical Computing</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Patient Selection</subject><subject>Predictive Value of Tests</subject><subject>Prospective Studies</subject><subject>ROC Curve</subject><subject>Severity of Illness Index</subject><subject>Tomography, X-Ray Computed</subject><subject>Urology</subject><issn>0090-4295</issn><issn>1527-9995</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2015</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkUFv1DAQhS0EotvCTwDlyCVhxlnbCQdQuy0UaSUOXc6WY8-ClyQudoK0_x5Hu3DgwmkO82bmzfcYe4VQIaB8e6jmGPrw7VhxQFGBrACbJ2yFgquybVvxlK0AWijXvBUX7DKlAwBIKdVzdsEl1qJBXLH73XcqNvMw92YiVzxMYaTi1puBJorviuti6we_dHYh9MU-xLPkZo6OxuIuTX4wkw_jC_Zsb_pEL8_1in39eLfb3JfbL58-b663pV23MJXWOHQdQW2dqbmTSigUJFtnugbBuqaWlgPVqlEdtRzrfbcW3CoH2bCsRX3F3pz2Psbwc6Y06cEnS31vRgpz0qiQC86FUlkqTlIbQ0qR9voxZrfxqBH0AlEf9BmiXiBqkDpDzHOvzyfmbiD3d-oPtSz4cBJQfvSXp6iT9TRacj6SnbQL_r8n3v-zwfZ-9Nb0P-hI6RDmOGaKGnXiGvTDkuQSJIqcIWYLvwG8AZl0</recordid><startdate>20150901</startdate><enddate>20150901</enddate><creator>Merigot de Treigny, Olivier</creator><creator>Bou Nasr, Elie</creator><creator>Almont, Thierry</creator><creator>Tack, Ivan</creator><creator>Rischmann, Pascal</creator><creator>Soulié, Michel</creator><creator>Huyghe, Eric</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20150901</creationdate><title>The Cumulated Stone Diameter: A Limited Tool for Stone Burden Estimation</title><author>Merigot de Treigny, Olivier ; Bou Nasr, Elie ; Almont, Thierry ; Tack, Ivan ; Rischmann, Pascal ; Soulié, Michel ; Huyghe, Eric</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c490t-cad1dbe03cda32d675715e69dab810cd836c20e3787be9213fb452c7d03586353</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2015</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Kidney Calculi - pathology</topic><topic>Kidney Calculi - surgery</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Mathematical Computing</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Patient Selection</topic><topic>Predictive Value of Tests</topic><topic>Prospective Studies</topic><topic>ROC Curve</topic><topic>Severity of Illness Index</topic><topic>Tomography, X-Ray Computed</topic><topic>Urology</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Merigot de Treigny, Olivier</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bou Nasr, Elie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Almont, Thierry</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tack, Ivan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rischmann, Pascal</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Soulié, Michel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Huyghe, Eric</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Urology (Ridgewood, N.J.)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Merigot de Treigny, Olivier</au><au>Bou Nasr, Elie</au><au>Almont, Thierry</au><au>Tack, Ivan</au><au>Rischmann, Pascal</au><au>Soulié, Michel</au><au>Huyghe, Eric</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The Cumulated Stone Diameter: A Limited Tool for Stone Burden Estimation</atitle><jtitle>Urology (Ridgewood, N.J.)</jtitle><addtitle>Urology</addtitle><date>2015-09-01</date><risdate>2015</risdate><volume>86</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>477</spage><epage>481</epage><pages>477-481</pages><issn>0090-4295</issn><eissn>1527-9995</eissn><abstract>Objective To compare the performance of the main methods used to estimate stone burden in order to improve and standardize preoperative evaluation of stone disease. Methods From January 2012 to June 2013, a series of consecutive retrograde intrarenal stone surgery was prospectively evaluated at a single institute. All patients had a pre- and postoperative CT scan. The stone burden was estimated using 3 methods: the cumulative stone diameter (M1), Ackermann's formula (M2), and the sphere formula (M3). The predictive value of the postoperative stone-free status of these methods was then compared. Results Overall (n = 142), the stone-free rate was 64%. The three methods (M1, M2, and M3) were all predictive of stone-free status for stones &lt;20 mm ( P  = .0076, .018, and .016, respectively). However, only M2 and M3 were significant for stones &gt;20 mm ( P  = .0024 and .023). Using receiver operating characteristic curves, we found that areas under the curve were 0.73, 0.70, and 0.71 for stones below 20 mm and 0.53, 0.74, and 0.74 for stones above 20 mm for M1, M2, and M3, respectively. In multivariate analysis, M1 and M3 were both found to be independently associated with the stone-free status in the whole series ( P  &lt;.001 and .011, respectively). However, for stones above 20 mm, only M3 was significant ( P  = .020). Conclusion Evaluation of the stone burden is an important predictor of the outcome of retrograde intrarenal stone surgery. For stones below 20 mm, all the three methods approximate stone burden correctly; however, for the stones above 20 mm, calculation of volume is recommended.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>26135811</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.urology.2015.06.018</doi><tpages>5</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0090-4295
ispartof Urology (Ridgewood, N.J.), 2015-09, Vol.86 (3), p.477-481
issn 0090-4295
1527-9995
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1712522577
source MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete
subjects Adult
Female
Humans
Kidney Calculi - pathology
Kidney Calculi - surgery
Male
Mathematical Computing
Middle Aged
Patient Selection
Predictive Value of Tests
Prospective Studies
ROC Curve
Severity of Illness Index
Tomography, X-Ray Computed
Urology
title The Cumulated Stone Diameter: A Limited Tool for Stone Burden Estimation
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-07T20%3A24%3A27IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The%20Cumulated%20Stone%20Diameter:%20A%20Limited%20Tool%20for%20Stone%20Burden%20Estimation&rft.jtitle=Urology%20(Ridgewood,%20N.J.)&rft.au=Merigot%20de%20Treigny,%20Olivier&rft.date=2015-09-01&rft.volume=86&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=477&rft.epage=481&rft.pages=477-481&rft.issn=0090-4295&rft.eissn=1527-9995&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.urology.2015.06.018&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1712522577%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1712522577&rft_id=info:pmid/26135811&rft_els_id=1_s2_0_S0090429515006111&rfr_iscdi=true