Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Analysis validates S-ReSC-R score for predicting stone-free outcomes in patients undergoing ESWL, indicating reliable assessment tool.
Incorporating the modified Seoul National University Renal Stone Complexity (S-ReSC-R) scoring system into the preoperative evaluation of both retrograde intrarenal surgery and percutaneous nephrolithotomy has proven to be highly effective in predicting stone-free status after each procedure. This study aimed to validate the S-ReSC-R scoring system in extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) and compare it with the Triple D score under the same protocol. Data on consecutive patients undergoing ESWL at a tertiary referral center between 2019 and 2021 were retrospectively analyzed. A total of 297 patients who were evaluated with non-contrast CT prior to the procedure and had adequate follow-up data were included in the analysis. The S-ReSC-R score was calculated based on the number of sites affected. Stone-free status was defined as no evidence of residual stones. Receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves were generated to determine cutoff values for both scoring systems. The overall stone-free rate (SFRs) after a single session was 60.5%. The average S-ReSC-R score was significantly lower in patients who had successful ESWL than in those with failed ESWL (1.50 vs 2.63, p < 0.001). The SFRs were significantly lower with higher S-ReSC-R scores: 72.4% in the low score (1-2) group, 36.0% in the intermediate score (3-4) group, and 10.5% in the high score (5-12) group (p < 0.001). Multivariate analyses revealed that both the S-ReSC-R score and the Triple D score independently influenced ESWL success (both p < 0.001). The area under the ROC curve for the S-ReSC-R score was 0.767, whereas that for the Triple D score was 0.694. This study confirms that the S-ReSC-R is a reliable tool for predicting stone-free status after ESWL. Thus, its use in evaluating patients for ESWL is recommended.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yodplob et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: