Clinical Reproducibility of the Stone Volume Measurement: A "Kidney Stone Calculator" Study

BACKGROUND

An accurate estimation of the stone burden is the key factor for predicting retrograde intra-renal surgical outcomes. Volumetric calculations better stratify stone burden than linear measurements. We developed a free software to assess the stone volume and estimate the lithotrity duration according to 3D-segmented stone volumes, namely the Kidney Stone Calculator (KSC). The present study aimed to validate the KSC's reproducibility in clinical cases evaluating its inter-observer and intra-observer correlations.

METHODS

Fifty patients that harbored renal stones were retrospectively selected from a prospective cohort. For each patient, three urologists with different experience levels in stone management made five measurements of the stone volume on non-contrast-enhanced computed tomography (NCCT) images using the KSC.

RESULTS

the overall inter-observer correlation (Kendall's concordance coefficient) was 0.99 (p < 0.0001). All three paired analyses of the inter-observer reproducibility were superior to 0.8. The intra-observer variation coefficients varied from 4% to 6%, and Kendall's intra-observer concordance coefficient was found to be superior to 0.98 (p < 0.0001) for each participant. Subgroup analyses showed that the segmentation of complex stones seems to be less reproductible.

CONCLUSIONS

The Kidney Stone Calculator is a reliable tool for the stone burden estimation. Its extension for calculating the lithotrity duration is of major interest and could help the practitioner in surgical planning.

Volumetric and functional outcomes at 1-year between percutaneous-ablation and partial-nephrectomy for T1b renal tumors

INTRODUCTION

Indication for percutaneous-ablation (PA) is gradually expanding to renal tumors T1b (4-7cm). Few data exist on the alteration of renal functional volume (RFV) post-PA. Yet, it is a surrogate marker of post partial-nephrectomy (PN) glomerular filtration rate (GFR) impairment. The objective was to compare RFV and GFR at 1-year post-PN or PA, in this T1b population.

METHODS

Patients with unifocal renal tumor≥4cm treated between 2014 and 2019 were included. Tumor, homolateral (RFVh), contralateral RFV, and total volumes were assessed by manual segmentation (3D Slicer) before and at 1 year of treatment, as was GFR. The loss of RFV, contralateral hypertrophy, and preservation of GFR were compared between both groups (PN vs. PA).

RESULTS

144 patients were included (87PN, 57PA). Preoperatively, PA group was older (74 vs. 59 years; P<0.0001), had more impaired GFR (73 vs. 85mL/min; P=0.0026) and smaller tumor volume(31.1 vs. 55.9cm3; P=0.0007) compared to PN group. At 1 year, the PN group had significantly more homolateral RFV loss (-19 vs. -14%; P=0.002), and contralateral compensatory hypertrophy (+4% vs. +1,8%; P=0.02, respectively). Total-RFV loss was similar between both (-21.7 vs. -19cm3; P=0.07). GFR preservation was better in the PN group (95.9 vs. 90.7%; P=0.03). In multivariate analysis, age and tumor size were associated with loss of RFVh.

CONCLUSION

For renal tumors T1b, PN is associated with superior compensatory hypertrophy compared with PA, compensating for the higher RFVh loss, resulting in similar ΔRFV-total between both groups. The superior post-PN GFR preservation suggests that the preserved quantitative RFV factor is insufficient. Therefore, the underlying quality of the parenchyma would play a major role in postoperative GFR.

Performing an early systematic Doppler-ultrasound fails to prevent hemorrhagic complications after complex partial nephrectomy

Background:

The aim of this work was to assess the clinical relevance of a systematic postoperative Doppler-ultrasound (DU) after complex partial nephrectomy (PN).

Materials and methods:

All patients who underwent open, laparoscopic or robotic PN from 2014 to 2017 at our institution were included. Postoperative hemorrhagic complications (HCs) were defined as the occurrence of blood transfusion, hemorrhagic shock, arterial embolization, or re-hospitalization for hematoma. DU was systematically performed between post-op day 4 and 7 for every complex tumor (RENAL score ⩾ 7). DU was considered positive in the presence of pseudoaneurysm (PA) or arteriovenous fistula (AVF).

Results:

Among 194 patients, 117 underwent DU (60.3%). We reported 22 HCs (11.3%) requiring 8 selective embolization procedures (4.1%). HCs occurred during the hospital stay in 17 patients (77.3%), thus directly diagnosed on a computed tomography scan. Among the five patients (22.7%) with HC occurring after hospital discharge, between day 7 to 15, four had a previously negative systematic DU. Overall, systematic DU was positive in only five patients (4.3%) with only one patient of 194 (0.5%) undergoing preventive embolization of a PA-AVF. The negative predictive values (NPVs) and positive predictive values of DU were respectively 96.5% and 5%, with 20% sensitivity and 96.5% specificity.

Conclusions:

Our results may suggest offering systematic DU in patients under antiplatelet therapies, with high tumor size (>T1b), or early postoperative hemoglobin variations. A high NPV of DU might be counterbalanced by its low sensibility. Since all secondary HCs occurred between postoperative day 7 to 15, our results may suggest differing DU in selected cases.