How reliable is endoscopic stone recognition? A comparison between visual stone identification and formal stone analysis.

Abstract

Objective: To assess the diagnostic accuracy and intra-observer agreement of endoscopic stone recognition (ESR) compared with formal stone analysis.Introduction: Stone analysis is a corner stone in the prevention of stone recurrence. Although X-ray diffraction (XRD) and infrared spectroscopy are the recommended techniques for reliable formal stone analysis, this is not always possible, and the process takes time and is costly. ESR could be an alternative, as it would give immediate information on stone composition.Materials and Methods: Fifteen endourologists predicted stone composition based on 100 videos from ureterorenoscopy. Diagnostic accuracy was evaluated by comparing the prediction from visual assessment with stone analysis by XRD. After 30 days, the videos were reviewed again in a random order to assess intra-observer agreement.Results: The median diagnostic accuracy for calcium oxalate monohydrate was 54% in questionnaire 1 (Q1) and 59% in questionnaire 2 (Q2), whereas calcium oxalate dihydrate had a median diagnostic accuracy of 75% in Q1 and 50% in Q2. The diagnostic accuracy for calcium hydroxyphosphate was 10% in Q1 and 13% in Q2. The median diagnostic accuracy for calcium hydrogen phosphate dihydrate and calcium magnesium phosphate was 0% in both questionnaires. The median diagnostic accuracy for magnesium ammonium phosphate was 20% in Q1 and 40% in Q2. The median diagnostic accuracy for uric acid was 22% in both questionnaires. Finally, there was a diagnostic accuracy of 60% in Q1 and 80% in Q2 for cystine. The intra-observer agreement ranged between 45% and 72%.Conclusion: Diagnostic accuracy of ESR is limited and intra-observer agreement is below the threshold of acceptable agreement.