Winoker Jared S, Yi Brendan, Chang Robert, Khargi Raymond, Khusid Jonathan, Atallah William, Gupta Mantu, Raskolnikov Dima, Small Alexander, Mohan Charan, Mullen Gregory, Razavi Sarah, Aro Tareq, Hartman Christopher, Hoenig David, Okeke Zeph, Smith Arthur, Rai Arun
Department of Urology, Lenox Hill Hospital/Northwell Health, New York, New York, USA.
Department of Urology, NSLIJ/Northwell Health, New Hyde Park, New York, USA.
J Endourol. 2025 Sep;39(9):948-952. doi: 10.1177/08927790251362867. Epub 2025 Jul 23.
Previous studies attempting to predict impaction on CT have relied on various criteria without a gold standard for comparison. Intraoperative single-surgeon estimations of impaction have been unvalidated and subjective. This study aimed to investigate surgeon perspectives and variability in estimating ureteral stone impaction based on a curated ureteroscopy video catalog. A catalog of 35 primary ureteroscopy cases was distributed to a group of fellowship-trained endourologists. All videos featured visual inspection of tissue around the stone, attempted passage of a guidewire adjacent to the stone, and an attempt to dislodge the stone with gentle nudging of the scope. Participants independently rated impaction on two different scales: continuous (0-9) and categorical (none/mild/moderate/severe). After a first pass, participants rated the videos in a new, random order. Inter- and intrarater agreement across both rating systems was evaluated. In total, 35 videos were evaluated by 13 endourologists. Overall, 13/35 videos had strong agreement (>70%) on the degree of impaction (6 none, 7 severe), and only 2 of these had 100% agreement (1 none, 1 severe). Continuous scale ratings mirrored the categorical ratings for the none and severe impaction cases. There were no cases with consensus agreement of mild or moderate impaction. More than one-third (12/35) of videos had at least one vote for each of the four severity categories, indicating stark disagreement between surgeons on what constitutes impaction. There is significant variability among endourologists regarding the definition and severity of stone impaction. When strong agreement occurs, it is when a stone is deemed to be severely impacted or not impacted. Further work is needed to create a standardized definition of impaction based on objective endoscopic criteria. A tripartite classification system may be the most appropriate manner of grouping ureteral stones based on impaction.
以往试图通过CT预测嵌顿情况的研究依赖于各种标准,却没有用于比较的金标准。术中由单名外科医生对嵌顿情况进行的评估尚未得到验证且具有主观性。本研究旨在基于精心整理的输尿管镜检查视频目录,调查外科医生对输尿管结石嵌顿评估的观点及变异性。将35例原发性输尿管镜检查病例的目录分发给一组接受过专科培训的泌尿外科医生。所有视频均展示了对结石周围组织的目视检查、尝试在结石旁通过导丝以及尝试通过轻柔推动镜身来移动结石。参与者分别在两种不同的量表上独立对嵌顿情况进行评分:连续量表(0 - 9分)和分类量表(无/轻度/中度/重度)。首轮评分后,参与者以新的随机顺序对视频再次评分。评估了两个评分系统的评分者间和评分者内一致性。共有13名泌尿外科医生对35个视频进行了评估。总体而言,13/35的视频在嵌顿程度上有高度一致性(>70%)(6个无嵌顿,7个重度嵌顿),其中只有2个视频的一致性达到100%(1个无嵌顿,1个重度嵌顿)。连续量表评分与无嵌顿和重度嵌顿病例的分类量表评分情况相符。不存在关于轻度或中度嵌顿达成共识的病例。超过三分之一(12/35)的视频在四个严重程度类别中每个类别都至少获得了一票,这表明外科医生对于嵌顿的构成存在明显分歧。泌尿外科医生在结石嵌顿的定义和严重程度方面存在显著差异。当出现高度一致性时,是在结石被判定为严重嵌顿或无嵌顿的情况下。需要进一步开展工作,基于客观的内镜标准创建嵌顿的标准化定义。基于嵌顿情况对输尿管结石进行分组,三方分类系统可能是最合适的方式。