Outcome groups and a practical tool to predict success of shock wave lithotripsy in daily clinical routine
- 20 May 2020
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Springer Science and Business Media LLC in World Journal of Urology
- Vol. 39 (3), 943-951
- https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-020-03253-5
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.This publication has 28 references indexed in Scilit:
- Surgical management of urolithiasis – a systematic analysis of available guidelinesBMC Urology, 2018
- Role of clinical and radiological parameters in predicting the outcome of shockwave lithotripsy for ureteric stonesUrology Annals, 2018
- CT-calculometry (CT-CM): advanced NCCT post-processing to investigate urinary calculiWorld Journal of Urology, 2017
- CT Texture Analysis of Ex Vivo Renal Stones Predicts Ease of Fragmentation with Shockwave LithotripsyJournal of Endourology, 2017
- Surgical Management of Stones: American Urological Association/Endourological Society Guideline, PART IJournal of Urology, 2016
- How do stone attenuation and skin-to-stone distance in computed tomography influence the performance of shock wave lithotripsy in ureteral stone disease?BMC Urology, 2015
- Impact of Renal Anatomy on Shock Wave Lithotripsy Outcomes for Lower Pole Kidney Stones: Results of a Prospective Multifactorial Analysis Controlled by Computerized TomographyJournal of Urology, 2015
- Triple D Score Is a Reportable Predictor of Shockwave Lithotripsy Stone-Free RatesJournal of Endourology, 2015
- Best Practices in Shock Wave Lithotripsy: A Comparison of Regional Practice PatternsUrology, 2014
- A Prospective Multivariate Analysis of Factors Predicting Stone Disintegration by Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy: The Value of High-Resolution Noncontrast Computed TomographyEuropean Urology, 2007