External Validation and Comparison of Current Scoring Systems in Encrusted Ureteral Stent Management: a Multicenter Study

dc.authorid0000-0002-5733-6790
dc.contributor.authorOzbilen, Mert Hamza
dc.contributor.authorCakici, Mehmet Caglar
dc.contributor.authorKisa, Erdem
dc.contributor.authorTigli, Taylan
dc.contributor.authorEkenci, Berk Yasin
dc.contributor.authorTufekci, Burak
dc.contributor.authorSari, Hilmi
dc.date.accessioned2025-11-16T19:34:34Z
dc.date.issued2025
dc.departmentİstanbul Medeniyet Üniversitesi
dc.description.abstractPurpose: To compare the external validation of four existing scoring systems for encrusted ureteral stents (EUS) and their relationship with stent indwelling time, stone-free rates, multiple surgery sessions, multimodal procedures, and prolonged operation times exceeding 120 minutes in total. Materials and Methods: The data of 208 patients who underwent surgery for EUS reviewed. All EUSs were evaluated with 4 scoring systems: ESB (encrusted stone burden), FECal (forgotten, encrusted, calcified), KUB (kidney, ureter and bladder), V-GUES (visual grading for ureteral stone burden). Results: As the duration of stent indwelling time prolonged, a significant increase is observed in the scores of ESB, FECal, KUB and V-GUES systems (p<0.001). In multivariate logistic regression analysis, V-GUES score (p=0.025) and stent indwelling time (p=0.014) in stone- free rate, FECal grade (p<0.001) in multimodal procedure requirement, FECal (p=0.002) and V-GUES (p=0.032) scores in multiple surgery sessions, and stent indwelling time (p=0.019) and KUB score (p<0.001) in prolonged operation time were found to be predictors. When the area under receiver operating characterictic (ROC) curves (AUC) of the nomograms were examined, V-GUES score (AUC=0.685) in stone-free rate, FECal grade (AUC=0.780) in multimodal procedure requirement, FECal grade (AUC=0.845) in multiple surgery sessions, and KUB score (AUC=0.860) in prolonged operation time were found to be superior. Conclusions: The management of EUSs is often challenging for urologists. Although the current scoring systems for EUS differ somewhat, it is important to use scoring systems to guide the management of these patients.
dc.identifier.doi10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2024.0500
dc.identifier.issn1677-5538
dc.identifier.issn1677-6119
dc.identifier.issue3
dc.identifier.pmid40079924
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-105000404171
dc.identifier.scopusqualityQ2
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2024.0500
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14730/15392
dc.identifier.volume51
dc.identifier.wosWOS:001461396600004
dc.identifier.wosqualityN/A
dc.indekslendigikaynakWeb of Science
dc.indekslendigikaynakScopus
dc.indekslendigikaynakPubMed
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherBrazilian Soc Urol
dc.relation.ispartofInternational Braz J Urol
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanı
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.snmzKA_WOS_20250302
dc.subjectStents
dc.subjectFactor Analysis, Statistical
dc.subjectUrolithiasis
dc.titleExternal Validation and Comparison of Current Scoring Systems in Encrusted Ureteral Stent Management: a Multicenter Study
dc.typeArticle

Dosyalar