Objective: To determine the effectiveness of Modified Guy's Stone Score (GSS) and S.T.O.N.E score (SS) as predictors of stone free rates in patients undergoing PCNL. Material & Methods: The design of this study was a prospective observational analytic. Samples were patients with kidney stones who came to the Urology Polyclinic of Soetomo0 General Hospital Surabaya, which was planned to undergo PCNL surgery, patients who met the inclusion criteria will have a CT stonographic examination then counted for the S.T.O.N.E score and Modified Guy's Stone Score before the PCNL procedure. Postoperative stone size evaluation used KUB X-ray (BOF) to assess Stone Free Rate (SFR). Results: In the ETA statistical test there was a strong relationship between GSS and SFR with a relationship strength value of 0.609, the direction of the relationship between these two variables was positive. This means that the greater the GSS, the less likely the SFR could be achieved. The relationship between these two variables was significant with p= 0.05. While between SS and SFR with a relationship strength value of 0.55, the strength of the relationship in these two variables was positive which indicated the higher the SS, the less likely the occurrence of SFR. But both of them were not statistically significant with p= 0.228. Conclusion: Guy Stone Score (GSS) gives a better predictive value than the STONE score (SS) on the stone free rates in patients undergoing PCNL procedures.
Modified Guy’s Stone Score, S.T.O.N.E score, PCNL, Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy, Stone Free Rate
Kemenkes RI, 2013. Riset Kesehatan Dasar.
Alelign T, Petros B. Kidney Stone Disease: An Update on Current Concepts. Adv Urol. 2018.
Akmal. Faktor yang berhubungan dengan batu saluran kemih di RSUP Dr. Wahidin Sudirohusodo makassar. 2013; 3: 56–61.
Wu WJ, Okeke Z. Current clinical scoring systems of percutaneous nephrolithotomy outcomes. Nat Rev Urol. 2017; 14(8): 459–69.
Luca C, Khawashki H Al, Benzakour T, Bozhkova S. The W.A.I.O.T. Definition of High-Grade and Low-Grade Peri-Prosthetic Joint Infection. 2019; 1–20.
Tefekli A, Karadag MA, Tepeler K, Sari E, Berberoglu Y, Baykal M, et al. Classification of Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy Complications Using the Modified Clavien Grading System: Looking for a Standard. Eur Urol. 2008; 53(1): 184–90.
De La Rosette J, Assimos D, Desai M, Gutierrez J, Lingeman J, Scarpa R, et al. The clinical research office of the endourological society percutaneous nephrolithotomy global study: Indications, complications, and outcomes in 5803 patients. J Endourol. 2011; 25(1): 11–7.
Thomas K, Smith NC, Hegarty N, Glass JM. The guy’s stone scoregrading the complexity of percutaneous nephrolithotomy procedures. Urology [Internet]. 2011; 78(2): 277–81.
Okhunov Z, Friedlander JI, George AK, Duty BD, Moreira DM, Srinivasan AK, et al. S.T.O.N.E. nephrolithometry: Novel surgical classification system for kidney calculi. Urology. 2013; 81(6): 1154–60.
Smith A, Averch TD, Shahrour K, Opondo D, Daels FPJ, Labate G, et al. A nephrolithometric nomogram to predict treatment success of percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Urol. 2013; 190(1): 149–56.
Yarimoglu S, Bozkurt IH, Aydogdu O, Yonguc T, Gunlusoy B, Degirmenci T. External Validation and Comparisons of the Scoring Systems for Predicting Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy Outcomes: A Single Center Experience with 506 Cases. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech. 2017; 27(12): 1284–9.
Singla A, Khattar N, Nayyar R, Mehra S, Goel H, Sood R. How practical is the application of percutaneous nephrolithotomy scoring systems? Prospective study comparing Guy’s Stone Score, S.T.O.N.E. score and the Clinical Research Office of the Endourological Society (CROES) nomogram. Arab J Urol. 2017; 15(1): 7–16.
Türk C, Neisius A, Petrik A, Seitz C, Skolarikos A, Thomas K. EAU Guidelines on Urolithiasis. Eur Assoc Urol. 2018; 69(3): 475–82.
Vicentini FC, Marchini GS, Mazzucchi E, Claro JFA, Srougi M. Utility of the Guy’s stone score based on computed tomographic scan findings for predicting percutaneous nephrolithotomy outcomes. Urology. 2014; 83(6): 1248–53.
Ingimarsson JP, Dagrosa LM, Hyams ES, Pais VM. External validation of a preoperative renal stone grading system: Reproducibility and inter-rater concordance of the Guy’s stone score using preoperative computed tomography and rigorous postoperative stone-free criteria. Urology. 2014; 83(1): 45–9.
Sinha RK, Mukherjee S, Jindal T, Sharma PK, Saha B, Mitra N, et al. Evaluation of stone-free rate using Guy’s Stone Score and assessment of complications using modified Clavien grading system for percutaneous nephro-lithotomy. Urolithiasis. 2015; 43(4): 349–53.
Khalil M, Sherif H, Mohey A, Omar R. Utility of the Guy’s Stone Score in predicting different aspects of percutaneous nephrolithotomy. African J Urol. 2018; 24(3): 191–6.
Jiang K, Sun F, Zhu J, Luo G, Zhang P, Ban Y, et al. Evaluation of three stone-scoring systems for predicting SFR and complications after percutaneous nephrolithotomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Urol. 2019; 19(1): 1–9.
Rathee VS, Vivek HC, Khan SW, Singh AK, Shukla PK, Verma A, et al. Comparison of Guy’s vs S.T.O.N.E. nephrolithometry scoring systems in predicting the success rate of PCNL. J Clin Urol. 2017; 10(5): 423–9.
C.s.manohar. Suspected Torsion score in patients presenting with acute scrotum. J Endourol. 2016; 30: A106.