Detail
Článek
Článek online
FT
Medvik - BMČ
  • Je něco špatně v tomto záznamu ?

Which Measure of Stone Burden is the Best Predictor of Interventional Outcomes in Urolithiasis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis by the YAU Urolithiasis Working Group and EAU Urolithiasis Guidelines Panel

R. Geraghty, A. Pietropaolo, L. Tzelves, R. Lombardo, H. Jung, A. Neisius, A. Petrik, BK. Somani, NF. Davis, G. Gambaro, R. Boissier, A. Skolarikos, T. Tailly

. 2025 ; 71 (-) : 22-30. [pub] 20241122

Status neindexováno Jazyk angličtina Země Nizozemsko

Typ dokumentu časopisecké články, přehledy

Perzistentní odkaz   https://www.medvik.cz/link/bmc25001883

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Stone size has traditionally been measured in one dimension. This is reflected in most of the literature and in the EAU guidelines. However, recent studies have shown that multidimensional measures provide better prediction of outcomes. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the prognostic accuracy of measures of stone size (PROSPERO reference CRD42022346967). We considered all studies reporting prognostic accuracy statistics on any intervention for kidney stones (extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy [ESWL], ureterorenoscopy [URS], or percutaneous nephrolithotomy [PCNL]; Population) using multiplane measurements of stone burden (area in mm2 or volume in mm3; Intervention) in comparison to single-plane measurements of stone burden (size in mm; Intervention) for the study-defined stone-free rate (Outcome) in a PICO-framed question. We also assessed complication rates (overall and by Clavien-Dindo grade) and the operative time as secondary outcomes. Searches were made between 1970 and August 2023. We used the DeLong method to compare receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS: Of 24 studies included in the review, 12 were eligible for comparative analysis with the DeLong test following meta-analysis of prognostic accuracy. For prediction of stone-free status, the area under the ROC curve (AUC) was significantly higher for stone volume than for stone size (0.71 vs 0.67; p < 0.001). Subanalyses confirmed this for ESWL and URS, but not for PCNL. For URS, the AUC was also significantly higher for stone area than for stone size (0.79 vs 0.77; p < 0.001). Throughout all analyses, there was no difference in AUC between stone area and stone volume. There was high risk of bias for all analyses apart from the URS subanalyses. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: According to the limited data currently available, stone-free rates are predicted with significantly higher accuracy using multidimensional measures of stone burden in comparison to a single linear measurement. PATIENT SUMMARY: We reviewed different ways of measuring the size of stones in the kidney or urinary tract and compared their accuracy in predicting stone-free rates after treatment. We found that measurement of the stone area (2 dimensions) or stone volume (3 dimensions) is better than stone diameter (1 dimension) in predicting stone-free status after treatment.

Citace poskytuje Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc25001883
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20250123101955.0
007      
ta
008      
250117e20241122ne f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.1016/j.euros.2024.10.024 $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)39651399
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a ne
100    1_
$a Geraghty, Robert $u Department of Urology, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK $u Urolithiasis Guidelines Panel, European Association of Urology, Arnhem, The Netherlands
245    10
$a Which Measure of Stone Burden is the Best Predictor of Interventional Outcomes in Urolithiasis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis by the YAU Urolithiasis Working Group and EAU Urolithiasis Guidelines Panel / $c R. Geraghty, A. Pietropaolo, L. Tzelves, R. Lombardo, H. Jung, A. Neisius, A. Petrik, BK. Somani, NF. Davis, G. Gambaro, R. Boissier, A. Skolarikos, T. Tailly
520    9_
$a BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Stone size has traditionally been measured in one dimension. This is reflected in most of the literature and in the EAU guidelines. However, recent studies have shown that multidimensional measures provide better prediction of outcomes. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the prognostic accuracy of measures of stone size (PROSPERO reference CRD42022346967). We considered all studies reporting prognostic accuracy statistics on any intervention for kidney stones (extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy [ESWL], ureterorenoscopy [URS], or percutaneous nephrolithotomy [PCNL]; Population) using multiplane measurements of stone burden (area in mm2 or volume in mm3; Intervention) in comparison to single-plane measurements of stone burden (size in mm; Intervention) for the study-defined stone-free rate (Outcome) in a PICO-framed question. We also assessed complication rates (overall and by Clavien-Dindo grade) and the operative time as secondary outcomes. Searches were made between 1970 and August 2023. We used the DeLong method to compare receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS: Of 24 studies included in the review, 12 were eligible for comparative analysis with the DeLong test following meta-analysis of prognostic accuracy. For prediction of stone-free status, the area under the ROC curve (AUC) was significantly higher for stone volume than for stone size (0.71 vs 0.67; p < 0.001). Subanalyses confirmed this for ESWL and URS, but not for PCNL. For URS, the AUC was also significantly higher for stone area than for stone size (0.79 vs 0.77; p < 0.001). Throughout all analyses, there was no difference in AUC between stone area and stone volume. There was high risk of bias for all analyses apart from the URS subanalyses. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: According to the limited data currently available, stone-free rates are predicted with significantly higher accuracy using multidimensional measures of stone burden in comparison to a single linear measurement. PATIENT SUMMARY: We reviewed different ways of measuring the size of stones in the kidney or urinary tract and compared their accuracy in predicting stone-free rates after treatment. We found that measurement of the stone area (2 dimensions) or stone volume (3 dimensions) is better than stone diameter (1 dimension) in predicting stone-free status after treatment.
590    __
$a NEINDEXOVÁNO
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
655    _2
$a přehledy $7 D016454
700    1_
$a Pietropaolo, Amelia $u Department of Urology, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK $u Young Academic Urologists Urolithiasis Working Group, European Association of Urology, Arnhem, The Netherlands
700    1_
$a Tzelves, Lazaros $u Urolithiasis Guidelines Panel, European Association of Urology, Arnhem, The Netherlands $u Young Academic Urologists Urolithiasis Working Group, European Association of Urology, Arnhem, The Netherlands $u Department of Urology, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Sismanogleio Hospital, Athens, Greece
700    1_
$a Lombardo, Riccardo $u Urolithiasis Guidelines Panel, European Association of Urology, Arnhem, The Netherlands $u Sant'Andrea Hospital, Sapienza University, Rome, Italy
700    1_
$a Jung, Helene $u Urolithiasis Guidelines Panel, European Association of Urology, Arnhem, The Netherlands $u Department of Urology, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark
700    1_
$a Neisius, Andreas $u Urolithiasis Guidelines Panel, European Association of Urology, Arnhem, The Netherlands $u Department of Urology, Bruederkrankenhaus Trier, Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Trier, Germany
700    1_
$a Petrik, Ales $u Urolithiasis Guidelines Panel, European Association of Urology, Arnhem, The Netherlands $u Department of Urology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czechia
700    1_
$a Somani, Bhaskar K $u Urolithiasis Guidelines Panel, European Association of Urology, Arnhem, The Netherlands $u Department of Urology, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK
700    1_
$a Davis, Niall F $u Urolithiasis Guidelines Panel, European Association of Urology, Arnhem, The Netherlands $u Department of Urology, Beaumont Hospital, Dublin, Ireland $u Department of Surgery, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Dublin, Ireland
700    1_
$a Gambaro, Giovanni $u Urolithiasis Guidelines Panel, European Association of Urology, Arnhem, The Netherlands $u Division of Nephrology and Dialysis, Department of Medicine, University of Verona, Verona, Italy
700    1_
$a Boissier, Romain $u Young Academic Urologists Urolithiasis Working Group, European Association of Urology, Arnhem, The Netherlands $u Department of Urology and Renal Transplantation, Aix-Marseille University, Marseille, France
700    1_
$a Skolarikos, Andreas $u Urolithiasis Guidelines Panel, European Association of Urology, Arnhem, The Netherlands $u Department of Urology, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Sismanogleio Hospital, Athens, Greece
700    1_
$a Tailly, Thomas $u Urolithiasis Guidelines Panel, European Association of Urology, Arnhem, The Netherlands $u Young Academic Urologists Urolithiasis Working Group, European Association of Urology, Arnhem, The Netherlands $u Department of Urology, University Hospital of Ghent, Ghent, Belgium
773    0_
$w MED00207999 $t European urology open science $x 2666-1683 $g Roč. 71 (20241122), s. 22-30
856    41
$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39651399 $y Pubmed
910    __
$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y - $z 0
990    __
$a 20250117 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20250123101949 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 2254415 $s 1237886
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC-PubMed-not-MEDLINE
BMC    __
$a 2025 $b 71 $c - $d 22-30 $e 20241122 $i 2666-1683 $m European urology open science $n Eur Urol Open Sci $x MED00207999
LZP    __
$a Pubmed-20250117

Najít záznam

Citační ukazatele

Možnosti archivace