Validation of a domestic nomogram for predicting shock-wave lithotripsy outcomes in children with urolithiasis

Cover Page


Cite item

Full Text

Open Access Open Access
Restricted Access Access granted
Restricted Access Subscription or Fee Access

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In 2024, the first Russian nomogram for predicting outcomes after the extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy (ESWL) in children was developed in the urological department of the National Medical Research Center for Children’s Health in Moscow, Russia. The nomogram is a mathematical relationship between several factors predicting ESWL outcomes. Such a model promotes a personalized and objective approach to the choice of treatment tactics for each patient. For further implementation of the developed nomogram into clinical practice, it is necessary to perform its external validation.

AIMS: to externally validate and assess the accuracy of the domestic nomogram for predicting the ESWL efficacy in children with urolithiasis.

METHODS: Dornier Compact Sigma device was used in all patients who underwent lithotripsy. The criterion of effective treatment was absence of stone fragments >3 mm in the urinary tract at ultrasound examination in 3 months after the surgery. Patients were divided into two groups depending on treatment outcomes. Then, a statistical analysis of the impact of various factors at lithotripsy outcomes was made. The prognostic accuracy of the previously developed nomogram was also evaluated.

RESULTS: A total of 86 renal units were included in the study. Patients’ average age was 12 years (6.25–15.00), female gender was predominant: 49 (57%) girls versus 37 (43%) boys. Lithotripsy was effective in 52.3%. A comparative analysis showed no statistically significant impact of patient’s gender (p=0.250) and age (p=0.839). When we compared multiplicity and accuracy of localization and their impact at ESWL effectiveness, we do found a statistically significant difference (p=0.010 and p=0.012, respectively). Size, volume, and density of the stone are the most significant predictors of ESWL outcome (p <0.001). The logistic regression analysis showed a statistical significance of summarized nomogram scores which may be used as an independent predictor of ESWL outcomes (p <0.001). Analysis of the confusion matrix showed that the nomogram sensitivity was 82.22%, specificity 78.05%, error-free 89.23%, accuracy 80.43%. Model F-measure was 0.81.

CONCLUSIONS: The performed external validation of the first Russian nomogram has confirmed its high predictive ability and clinical significance in assessing and predicting outcomes after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in children with urolithiasis.

Full Text

Restricted Access

About the authors

Antonina D. Lobanova

National Medical Research Center for Children’s Health

Author for correspondence.
Email: lobanova.ad@nczd.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-7971-5073
SPIN-code: 2665-2856
Россия, Moscow

Sergey N. Zorkin

National Medical Research Center for Children’s Health

Email: zorkin@nczd.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-4038-1472
SPIN-code: 4762-8837

MD, Dr. Sci. (Medicine), Professor

Россия, Moscow

Rimir R. Baiazitov

National Medical Research Center for Children’s Health

Email: krasik17@yandex.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-2809-1894
SPIN-code: 5506-6828

MD, Cand. Sci. (Medicine)

Россия, Moscow

Dmitry S. Shakhnovskiy

National Medical Research Center for Children’s Health

Email: shahnovskii_dmit@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-2883-2493
SPIN-code: 4946-0848
Россия, Moscow

References

  1. Ang AJS, Sharma AA, Sharma A. Nephrolithiasis: Approach to Diagnosis and Management. Indian J Pediatr. 2020;87(9):716–725. doi: 10.1007/s12098-020-03424-7
  2. Akin Y, Yucel S. Long-term effects of pediatric extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy on renal function. Res Rep Urol. 2014;6:21–25. doi: 10.2147/RRU.S40965
  3. Brinkmann OA, Griehl A, Kuwertz-Bröking E, et al. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in children. Effcacy, complications and long-term follow-up. Eur Urol. 2001;39(5):591–597. doi: 10.1159/000052509
  4. Ather MH, Noor MA. Does size and site matter for renal stones up to 30-mm in size in children treated by extracorporeal lithotripsy? Urology. 2003;61(1):212–215. doi: 10.1016/s0090-4295(02)02128-3
  5. Kırlı EA, Türegün FA, Selçuk B, et al. Does Previous Open Stone Surgery Affect the Outcome of Shock Wave Lithotripsy Treatment in Children? Urol Int. 2021;105(1–2):52–58. doi: 10.1159/000509563
  6. McAdams S, Shukla AR. Pediatric extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: Predicting successful outcomes. Indian J Urol. 2010;26(4):544–548. doi: 10.4103/0970-1591.74457
  7. McAdams S, Kim N, Ravish IR, et al. Stone size is only independent predictor of shock wave lithotripsy success in children: a community experience. J Urol. 2010;184(2):659–664. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2010.03.059
  8. Onal B, Tansu N, Demirkesen O, et al. Nomogram and scoring system for predicting stone-free status after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in children with urolithiasis. BJU Int. 2013;111(2):344–352. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11281.x
  9. Dogan HS, Altan M, Citamak B, et al. A new nomogram for prediction of outcome of pediatric shock-wave lithotripsy. J Pediatr Urol. 2015;11(2):84.e1–84.e6. doi: 10.1016/j.jpurol.2015.01.004
  10. Lobanova AD, Zorkin SN, Baiazitov RR, Shakhnovskiy DS. A nomogram to determine the effectiveness of remote shock-wave lithotripsy in children with urolithiasis. Russian Pediatric Journal. 2024;27(6):410–416. EDN: YTVIFQ doi: 10.46563/1560-9561-2024-27-6-410-416
  11. Zhao FZ, Li J, Tang L, et al. Comparison of efficacy and safety of minimally invasive procedures for 10-20 mm pediatric renal Stones-A bayesian network meta-analysis. J Pediatr Urol. 2020;16(6):771–781. doi: 10.1016/j.jpurol.2020.08.019
  12. Grosso AA, Sessa F, Campi R, et al. Intraoperative and postoperative surgical complications after ureteroscopy, retrogra de intrarenal surgery, and percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a systematic review. Minerva Urol Nephrol. 2021;73(3):309–332. doi: 10.23736/S2724-6051.21.04294-4
  13. Kanao K, Nakashima J, Nakagawa K, et al. Preoperative nomograms for predicting stone-free rate after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol. 2006;176(4Pt1):1453–1457. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2006.06.089
  14. Dogan HS, Tekgul S. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: principles of fragmentation techniques. In: Godbole P, Koyle M, Wilcox D, eds. Pediatric Endourology Techniques. 2014:257–263.
  15. Lee HY, Yang YH, Lee YL, et al. Noncontrast computed tomography factors that predict the renal stone outcome after shock wave lithotripsy. Clin Imaging. 2015;39(5):845–850. doi: 10.1016/j.clinimag.2015.04.010
  16. Yuri P, Hariwibowo R, Soeroharjo I, et al. Meta-analysis of Optimal Management of Lower Pole Stone of 10 - 20 mm: Flexible Ureteroscopy (FURS) versus Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy (ESWL) versus Percutaneus Nephrolithotomy (PCNL). Acta Med Indones. 2018;50(1):18–25.
  17. Atan A, Polat F, Turkyilmaz Z, Sonmez K. Areas of Alpha-1 Receptor Blocker Usage in Pediatric Urology. GMJ. 2020;31:457–459.
  18. Tian D, Li N, Huang W, et al. The efficacy and safety of adrenergic alpha-antagonists in treatment of distal ureteral stones in pediatric patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Pediatr Surg. 2017;52:360–365. doi: 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2016.10.003
  19. Kyarimov IA, Zorkin SN, Lobanova AD, Kosobutskaya SA. Medical expulsive therapy for urolithiasis in children: experience of use in foreign practice. Litrature review. Russian Journal of Pediatric Surgery. 2024;28(4):364–371. EDN: CSXFPP doi: 10.17816/ps704
  20. Yanaral F, Ozgor F, Savun M, et al. Shock-wave Lithotripsy for Pediatric Patients: Which Nomogram Can Better Predict Postoperative Outcomes? Urology. 2018;117:126–130. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2018.03.045

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
2. Fig. 1. Nomogram for predicting outcomes of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in children.

Download (900KB)
3. Fig. 2. ROC curve characterizing the dependence of efficiency probability on the value of the logistic function (straight line).

Download (310KB)
4. Fig. 3. Sensitivity and specificity analysis of the model depending on the threshold values of the logistic function.

Download (355KB)

Copyright (c) 2025 Eco-Vector

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies