Development and internal validation of a nomogram to predict perioperative complications after flexible ureteroscopy for renal stones in overnight ureteral catheterization cases

Abstract

Purpose

To identify risk factors by developing and internally validating a nomogram for preventing perioperative complications in overnight ureteral catheterization cases after fURS for kidney stones.

Methods

We retrospectively examined 309 patients with overnight ureteral catheterization after single fURS procedures for renal stones. fURS procedures were performed based on the fragmentation technique. The ureteral catheter was removed on postoperative day 1. Within this group, patients who experienced perioperative complications (complication group) were compared with those who did not experience complications (non-complication group). The complication group included 77 patients whose Clavien–Dindo classification score was I, II, III, or IV and/or those whose body temperature during hospitalization was over 37.5 °C.

Results

The overall stone volume, stone-free rate, incidence of perioperative complications, and procedure duration were 1.39 mL, 94.8%, 24.9%, and 62 min, respectively. Severe complications of a Clavien–Dindo level III or IV were observed in only four cases (1.3%). Multivariate assessment revealed five independent predictors of perioperative complications after fURS with overnight catheterization: age (p = 0.11), sex (p = 0.067), stone volume (p = 0.33), Hounsfield units (p = 0.16), and narrow ureter (p = 0.018). We developed a nomogram to predict perioperative complications after fURS using these parameters.

Conclusions

We developed a predictive model for perioperative complications of patients with overnight catheterization after fURS for renal stones. This model could select patients who were at a low risk of complications.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Figure 1

Abbreviations

AUROC:

Area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve

fURS:

Flexible ureteroscopy

NCCT:

Non-contrast computed tomography

POD:

Postoperative day

SF:

Stone-free

References

  1. 1.

    Breda A, Ogunyemi O, Leppert JT, Schulam PG (2009) Flexible ureteroscopy and laser lithotripsy for multiple unilateral intrarenal stones. Eur Urol 55:1190–1196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2008.06.019

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    El-Nahas AR, Ibrahim HM, Youssef RF, Sheir KZ (2012) Flexible ureterorenoscopy versus extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for treatment of lower pole stones of 10–20 mm. BJU Int 110:898–902. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.10961.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Cohen J, Cohen S, Grasso M (2013) Ureteropyeloscopic treatment of large, complex intrarenal and proximal ureteral calculi. BJU Int 111:E127–131. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11352.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Breda A, Ogunyemi O, Leppert JT, Lam JS, Schulam PG (2008) Flexible ureteroscopy and laser lithotripsy for single intrarenal stones 2 cm or greater–is this the new frontier? J Urol 179:981–984. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2007.10.083

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Pearle MS, Lingeman JE, Leveillee R et al (2008) Prospective randomized trial comparing shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopy for lower pole caliceal calculi 1 cm or less. J Urol 179:S69–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2008.03.140

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Raheem OA, Khandwala YS, Sur RL, Ghani KR, Denstedt JD (2017) Burden of urolithiasis: trends in prevalence, treatments, and costs. Eur Urol Focus 3:18–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2017.04.001

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Giusti G, Proietti S, Villa L et al (2016) Current standard technique for modern flexible ureteroscopy: tips and tricks. Eur Urol 70:188–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2016.03.035

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Haleblian G, Kijvikai K, De La Rosette J, Preminger G (2008) Ureteral stenting and urinary stone management: a systematic review. J Urol 179:424–430. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2007.09.026

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Nabi G, Cook J, N’Dow J, McClinton S (2007) Outcomes of stenting after uncomplicated ureteroscopy: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 334:572. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39119.595081.55

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Komeya M, Usui K, Asai T, Ogawa T, Taguri M, Kataoka K, Yao M, Matsuzaki J (2018) Outcome of flexible ureteroscopy for renal stone with overnight ureteral catheterization: a propensity score-matching analysis. World J Urol 36:1871–1876. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-018-2328-1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Ito H, Kawahara T, Terao H, Ogawa T, Yao M, Kubota Y, Matsuzaki J (2012) The most reliable preoperative assessment of renal stone burden as a predictor of stone-free status after flexible ureteroscopy with holmium laser lithotripsy: a single-center experience. Urology 80:524–528. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2012.04.001

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Ahn ST, Kim JH, Park JY, du Moon G, Bae JH (2012) Acute postoperative pain after ureteroscopic removal of stone: incidence and risk factors. Korean J Urol 53:34–39. https://doi.org/10.4111/kju.2012.53.1.34

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Darrad MP, Yallappa S, Metcalfe J, Subramonian K (2018) The natural history of asymptomatic calyceal stones. BJU Int 122:263–269. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.14354

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Kanda Y (2013) Investigation of the freely available easy-to-use software ‘EZR’ for medical statistics. Bone Marrow Transplant 48:452–458. https://doi.org/10.1038/bmt.2012.244

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Song T, Liao B, Zheng S, Wei Q (2012) Meta-analysis of postoperatively stenting or not in patients underwent ureteroscopic lithotripsy. Urol Res 40:67. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-011-0385-7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This study was funded by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C) 19K09718 (to M.J. and K.M.)

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

MK: project development, data collection, and manuscript writing. KO: data collection. JA: data collection. TA: data collection. YS: data analysis. TO: project development and manuscript editing. MY: project development. JM: project development.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mitsuru Komeya.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Research involving human participants and/or animals

This study was approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee of Ohguchi East General Hospital.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Komeya, M., Odaka, H., Asano, J. et al. Development and internal validation of a nomogram to predict perioperative complications after flexible ureteroscopy for renal stones in overnight ureteral catheterization cases. World J Urol 38, 2307–2312 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-019-03023-y

Download citation

Keywords

  • Nomograms
  • Ureteroscopy
  • Kidney calculi
  • Perioperative care
  • Postoperative complications