Predicting stone free rate after retrograde intrarenal surgery using RIRS scoring system versus Resorlu Unsal stone score (RUSS)

ABSTRACT

Background

To evaluate the predictive ability of the RIRS scoring system and the RUSS in predicting stone-free rate (SFR) after retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS).

Methods

This prospective study was conducted on patients who underwent RIRS for kidney stones. Two scoring systems were used to determine the degree of procedure difficulty: the RIRS scoring system and the RUSS. We assessed the predictive ability of the two scoring systems utilizing receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis and calculated the sensitivity and specificity of each system. Additionally, we analyzed the association between the scoring systems and the stone-free outcome using a multivariate logistic regression model.

Results

One hundred seventy-one patients were incorporated into this study with a mean age of 43 years, and 65.5% were male. The results showed a significant AUC of 0.868 for the RIRS score (P < 0.001, 95% CI = 0.813–0.924). The sensitivity and specificity were 72% and 93.7%, respectively. In contrast, the RUSS score revealed a non-significant unsatisfactory AUC of 0.480 (P = 0.660), with a 95% confidence interval ranging from 0.384–0.576.

Conclusion

The RIRS scoring system showed a better predictive ability for SFR after RIRS than the RUSS. Additionally, RIRS was a significant predictor of SFR, controlling for age, gender, body mass index, and previous renal surgery.

KEYWORDS:

• RIRS
• RUSS
• SFR
• scoring system
• predictive value

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Availability of data and material

The datasets used and analyzed for the current work are available upon reasonable request from the corresponding author.

Ethical approval and consent to participate

The current research followed the declaration of Helsinki ‎for studies involving humans, and the Benha ‎University ethics committee approved it (Ms; 12.3.2022). All patients gave written consent before participation.

Consent for publication

All authors approve the manuscript and give their consent for submission and publication.

Author’s contribution

BE : design of the work, interpretation of data, the acquisition, analysis, original draft, substantively revised Manuscript

MF : Supervision, Data analysis, Manuscript Review.

HS : Data collection, Manuscript writing

AG : design of the work, Visualization, Supervision,Validation.

ME: Methodology, interpretation of data, Manuscript writing

−All authors have read and approved the munuscript

Additional information

Funding

There are none to be declared.