Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
Advances in Urology
Volume 2016, Article ID 5157930, 6 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2016/5157930
Research Article

Guy’s Stone Score (GSS) Based on Intravenous Pyelogram (IVP) Findings Predicting Upper Pole Access Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy (PCNL) Outcomes

Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand

Received 3 July 2016; Revised 4 October 2016; Accepted 2 November 2016

Academic Editor: James A. Brown

Copyright © 2016 Bannakij Lojanapiwat et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Linked References

  1. B. Lojanapiwat and S. Prasopsuk, “Upper-pole access for percutaneous nephrolithotomy: comparison of supracostal and infracostal approaches,” Journal of Endourology, vol. 20, no. 7, pp. 491–494, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  2. R. N. Pedro and N. R. Netto Jr., “Upper-pole access for percutaneous nephrolithotomy,” Journal of Endourology, vol. 23, no. 10, pp. 1645–1647, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  3. K. Thomas, N. C. Smith, N. Hegarty, and J. M. Glass, “A cost-effective smoothed multigrid with modified neighborhood-based aggregation for Markov Chains,” Urology, vol. 78, no. 2, pp. 277–15, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  4. F. C. Vicentini, G. S. Marchini, E. Mazzucchi, J. F. A. Claro, and M. Srougi, “Utility of the Guy's stone score based on computed tomographic scan findings for predicting percutaneous nephrolithotomy outcomes,” Urology, vol. 83, no. 6, pp. 1248–1253, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  5. J. P. Ingimarsson, L. M. Dagrosa, E. S. Hyams, and V. M. Pais, “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, vol. 83, no. 1, pp. 45–49, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  6. S. Mandal, A. Goel, R. Kathpalia et al., “Prospective evaluation of complications using the modified Clavien grading system, and of success rates of percutaneous nephrolithotomy using Guy's Stone Score: a single-center experience,” Indian Journal of Urology, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 392–398, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  7. B. R. Matlaga and E. S. Hyams, “Stones: can the Guy's stone score predict PNL outcomes?” Nature Reviews Urology, vol. 8, no. 7, pp. 363–364, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  8. Y. A. Noureldin, M. A. Elkoushy, and S. Andonian, “Which is better? Guy’s versus S.T.O.N.E. nephrolithometry scoring systems in predicting stone-free status post-percutaneous nephrolithotomy,” World Journal of Urology, vol. 33, no. 11, pp. 1821–1825, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  9. Z. Okhunov, M. Helmy, A. Perez-Lansac et al., “Interobserver reliability and reproducibility of S.T.O.N.E. nephrolithometry for renal calculi,” Journal of Endourology, vol. 27, no. 10, pp. 1303–1306, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  10. A. Smith, T. D. Averch, K. Shahrour et al., “A nephrolithometric nomogram to predict treatment success of percutaneous nephrolithotomy,” Journal of Urology, vol. 190, no. 1, pp. 149–156, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  11. H.-G. Tiselius and A. Andersson, “Stone burden in an average Swedish population of stone formers requiring active stone removal: how can the stone size be estimated in the clinical routine?” European Urology, vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 275–281, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  12. B. Turna, M. Umul, S. Demiryoguran, B. Altay, and O. Nazli, “How do increasing stone surface area and stone configuration affect overall outcome of percutaneous nephrolithotomy?” Journal of Endourology, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 34–43, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  13. N. Penbegul, N. K. Hatipoglu, M. N. Bodakci et al., “Role of ultrasonography in percutaneous renal access in patients with renal anatomic abnormalities,” Urology, vol. 81, no. 5, pp. 938–942, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  14. P. J. Osther, H. Razvi, E. Liatsikos et al., “Percutaneous nephrolithotomy among patients with renal anomalies: patient characteristics and outcomes; A subgroup analysis of the clinical research office of the endourological society global percutaneous nephrolithotomy study,” Journal of Endourology, vol. 25, no. 10, pp. 1627–1632, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  15. J. J. M. C. H. de la Rosette, M. P. Laguna, J. J. Rassweiler, and P. Conort, “Training in percutaneous nephrolithotomy—a critical review,” European Urology, vol. 54, no. 5, pp. 994–1003, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  16. P. J. Olbert, A. Hegele, A. J. Schrader, A. Scherag, and R. Hofmann, “Pre- and perioperative predictors of short-term clinical outcomes in patients undergoing percutaneous nephrolitholapaxy,” Urological Research, vol. 35, no. 5, pp. 225–230, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  17. A. Y. Muslumanoglu, A. Tefekli, M. A. Karadag, A. Tok, E. Sari, and Y. Berberoglu, “Impact of percutaneous access point number and location on complication and success rates in percutaneous nephrolithotomy,” Urologia Internationalis, vol. 77, no. 4, pp. 340–346, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  18. K. Labadie, Z. Okhunov, A. Akhavein et al., “Evaluation and comparison of urolithiasis scoring systems used in percutaneous kidney stone surgery,” Journal of Urology, vol. 193, no. 1, pp. 154–159, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  19. A. R. El-Nahas, A. A. Shokeir, A. M. El-Assmy et al., “Post-percutaneous nephrolithotomy extensive hemorrhage: a study of risk factors,” Journal of Urology, vol. 177, no. 2, pp. 576–579, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  20. A. Tefekli, M. A. Karadag, K. Tepeler et al., “Classification of percutaneous nephrolithotomy complications using the modified clavien grading system: looking for a standard,” European Urology, vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 184–190, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus