Integral criterion for estimation the effectiveness of lithotripsy-treated urolithiasis

Introduction. Various criteria are used to assess the quality of lithotripsy-treated urolithiasis, the main of which is the stone free rate (SFR). Along with this criteria, the risk of complications, the duration of lithotripsy, the amount of retropulsion, the length of hospital bed-days and others are also considered when comparing lithotripsy methods. However, each of these criteria evaluates only one side of lithotripsy-treated urolithiasis.

Objective. To develop a universal integral criterion for the effectiveness of urolithiasis treatment using lithotripsy.

Materials and methods. The method of expert assessments was used to determine the factors affecting the overall effectiveness of lithotripsy. Expert survey was carried out using the questionnaire method. Mathematical methods of the operations research theory and the criteria importance theory were used to construct an integral efficiency criterion.

Results. It is suggested that a weighted sum of factors determined in the process of conducting expert assessments be used as an integral criterion for the effectiveness of lithotripsy-treated urolithiasis. Factors are SFR coefficient, average surgery length, complications and average hospital bed-day. The weight factors to consider the degree of influence of these factors are w₁ = 0.436; w₂ = 0.143; w₃ = 0.240; w₄ = 0.181, respectively

Conclusion. The proposed integral indicator can find wide application in urological practice, since it allows considering not only the relative proportion of patients who do not have stones after lithotripsy, but also the probability of complications, as well as the length of hospital bed-days, which affect the treatment cost and the patient's quality of life.

1. Afonin V.Ya., Gudkov A.V., Boschenko V.S., Arsenyev A.V. Efficacy and safety of endoscopic contact electropulse lithotripsy in urolithic disease. The Siberian Medical Journal. 2009;24(1):117-124. (In Russ.) EDN: KZIFER

2. Glybochko P.V., Alyaev Yu.G., Rudenko V.I., Gazimiev M.A., Bezhenar B.A., Akopyan G.N., Shpot E.V., Aksenov A.V. Comparative clinical efficacy of remote and contact lithotripsy in patients with urolithiasis. Bashkortostan Medical Journal. Scientific Publication. 2011;6(2):36-39. (In Russ.) EDN: NTKGZV

3. Kogan M.I., Belousov I.I., Yassine A.M. Efficiency of contact ureterolithotripsy in treatment of proximal ureteral large stones. Urology Herald. 2019;7(1):12-25. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.21886/2308-6424-2019-7-1-12-25

4. Uygun I, Okur MH, Aydogdu B, Arayici Y, Isler B, Otcu S. Efficacy and safety of endoscopic laser lithotripsy for urinary stone treatment in children. Urol Res. 2012;40(6):751-5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-012-0495-x

5. Ali AI, Abdel-Karim AM, Abd El Latif AA, Eldakhakhny A, Galal EM, Anwar AZ, El-Hawy MM, Fathelbab TKH, Elbadry MS, Elsharkawy MS, Tawfiek ER. Stone‑free rate after semirigid ureteroscopy with holmium laser lithotripsy versus laparoscopic ureterolithotomy for upper ureteral calculi: a multicenter study. African Journal of Urology. 2019;25:8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12301-019-0003-4

6. Yang J, Tao RZ, Lu P, Chen MX, Huang XK, Chen KL, Huang YH, He XR, Wan LD, Wang J, Tang X, Zhang W. Efficacy analysis of self-help position therapy after holmium laser lithotripsy via flexible ureteroscopy. BMC Urol. 2018;18(1):33. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12894-018-0348-1

7. Martov A.G., Gordienko A.Yu., Moskalenko S.A, Penyukova I.V. Extracorporeal and contact ureterolithotripsy in the treatment of big stones in upper third of the ureter. Experimental and clinical urology. 2013;2:82-85. (In Russ.) EDN: OSSZJY

8. Gudkov A.V., Boschenko V.S. Efficacy of retrograde contact electropulse lithotripsy. Medical Bulletin of Bashkortostan. 2011;6(2):242-244. (In Russ.) EDN: NTKHZP

9. Dzeranov N.K., Rudenko V.I., Bezhenar V.A. Comparative clinical effectiveness of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and the contact ureterolithotripsyiIn patients with urolithiasis. Farmateka. 2013;3:38-42. (In Russ.) EDN: PXVZRX

10. Platonova D.V., Zamyatina V.A., Dymov A.M., Kovalenko A.A., Vinarov A.Z., Minaev V.P. Laser lithotripsy. Urologiia. 2015;(6):116-121. (In Russ.) EDN: TAZXXH

11. Chernega V.S., Tlukhovskaya-Stepanenko N.P., Eremenko A.N., Eremenko S.N. Assessment of the rate of fragmentation of urinary stones in contact lithotripsy with a holmium laser. Urologiia. 2018;5:69-73. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.18565/urology.2018.5.69-72

12. Fan S, Gong B, Hao Z, Zhang L, Zhou J, Zhang Y, Liang C. Risk factors of infectious complications following flexible ureteroscope with a holmium laser: a retrospective study. Int J Clin Exp Med. 2015;8(7):11252-9. PMID: 26379932 PMCID: PMC4565315

13. Podinovsky V.V., Potapov M.A. Weighted sum method in the analysis of multicriterial decisions: pro et contra. Businessinformatica. 2013;3(25):41-48. (In Russ.) EDN: RBWNYH

14. Mitropoulos D, Artibani W, Graefen M, Remzi M, Rouprêt M, Truss M; European Association of Urology Guidelines Panel. Reporting and grading of complications after urologic surgical procedures: an ad hoc EAU guidelines panel assessment and recommendations. Eur Urol. 2012;61(2):341-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2011.10.033

15. Öğreden E, Oğuz U, Demirelli E, Benli E, Sancak EB, Gülpinar MT, Akbaş A, Reşorlu B, Ayyildiz A, Yalçin O. Categorization of ureteroscopy complications and investigation of associated factors by using the modified Clavien classification system. Turk J Med Sci. 2016;46(3):686-94. https://doi.org/10.3906/sag-1503-9