Post-Ureteroscopic Lesion Scale to determine ureteral wall damage, not so easy to employ

Abstract

Objective: To analyze the level of agreement of the Post-Ureteroscopy Lesion Scale (PULS) and the consequences on its application in clinical practice with more reliable statistical data than the one used in the original work.

Methods: 14 URS and 14 micro-URS were performed in 14 female porcine model. All the procedures were video recorded and an anatomopathological analysis was performed in each ureter. Sixteen urologists (9 endourologists and 7 general urologists) and 4 residents evaluated the ureteral lesions according to the PULS, with degrees 0, 1 and ≥2. The agreement was calculated with percentages, Kendall's W coefficient and the indicators Fleiss' Kappa and Krippendorff's Alpha, while the inter-rater agreement was calculated with Spearman's correlation and Cohen's Kappa.

Results: The percent of agreement was 11.1%. The coefficients were likewise classified as low or very low, with the greatest agreement found among the inexperienced. Also, 50% of the raters did not agree with the rest.

Conclusions: The low inter-rater agreement, the specificity of the PULS and the clinical-pathological correlation suggests that this scale is not simple, and probably has a long learning curve.

Keywords: Concordance; Concordancia; Escala; Lesión ureteral; Micro-ureteroscopia; Micro-ureteroscopy; Post-Ureteroscopic Lesion Scale; Scale; Ureteral lesion; Ureteroscopia; Ureteroscopy.