Comparison and outcomes of dusting versus stone fragmentation and extraction in retrograde intrarenal surgery: results of a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Introduction: Lithotripsy during retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) can be achieved either by fragmentation and extraction or dusting with spontaneous passage. We aimed to perform a systematic review on the safety and stone-free rate after RIRS by comparing the techniques of dusting vs fragmentation/extraction. Material and methods: This review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses statement. The inverse variance of the mean difference and 95% Confidence Interval (CI), Categorical variables were assessed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Method with the random effect model and reported as Odds Ratio (OR) and 95% CI. Statistical significance was set at p <0.05. Results: There were 1141 patients included in 10 studies. Stone size was up to 2.5 cm All studies used holmium laser for lithotripsy. Meta-analysis showed no significant difference in surgical time (MD -5.39 minutes 95% CI -13.92-2.31, p = 0.16), postoperative length of stay (MD -0.19 days 95% CI -0.60 - -0.22, p=0.36), overall complications (OR 0.98 95% CI 0.58-1.66, p = 0.95), hematuria (OR 1.01 95% CI 0.30-3.42, p = 0.99), postoperative fever (OR 0.70 95% CI 0.41-1.19, p = 0.19) and sepsis (OR 1.03 95% CI 0.10-10.35, p = 0.98), immediate (OR 0.40 95% CI 0.13-1.24, p = 0.11) and overall stone-free rate (OR 0.76 95% CI 0.43-1.32, p = 0.33), and retreatment rate (OR 1.35 95% CI 0.57-3.20, p = 0.49) between the groups. Conclusions: This systematic review infers that urologists can safely use either option of fragmentation and basket extraction or dusting without extraction to achieve similar outcomes as both techniques are similar for efficacy and safety.

Influence of Webinar-Based Learning on Practice of Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy: Outcomes of a Global Survey.

Background: With webinars looking to be the mainstay post-pandemic, it is important to demonstrate whether webinars are, indeed, effective educational tools for professional training and skill acquisition. We aim at demonstrating, via a global survey, the efficacy of webinars on percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) and how this knowledge transforms clinical practice. Methods: A structured online survey covering the following sections: (1) Demographics, (2) PCNL techniques, and (3) PCNL equipment was circulated. The target study population were practicing urologists and residents. Categorical data were presented with counts and percentages, and they were compared by using Chi-square test. Continuous data were analyzed with non-parametric methods. Respondents were dichotomized according to attendance of webinar type, attendees of dedicated PCNL webinars (Group A), or attendees of endourological webinars that discussed some aspects of PCNL (Group B). Results: A total of 303 respondents from 38 countries participated. Overall, 91.7% (n = 278) were in Group A and 8.3% (n = 25) were in Group B; 77.9% were younger than 50 years, whereas 51.8% had more than 10 years of urology experience. In group A, urologists of all ages, in academic institutions and private practitioners, significantly benefited in gaining knowledge about the merits of newer devices and the role of suction-assisted devices in modern PCNL. The majority of group A also reflected that by attending a dedicated PCNL-based webinar they benefited in learning newer positions for PCNL access, especially supine, and how to effectively use laser as energy devices for lithotripsy. In Group B, the only area of benefit was in lasing techniques and the use of newer lasers such as the thulium fibre laser. Conclusion: Our survey positively validates the two proposed hypothesis, that is, webinars as a medium of education do benefit practicing urologists in knowledge and the clinical practice domains. Age, experience, or place of practice is no barrier to adopting newer mediums of education such as webinars.

Increased risk of transurethral and suprapubic catheter self-extraction in COVID-19 patients: real-life experience.

INTRODUCTION: This study evaluated the prevalence of transurethral catheter self-removal in critically-ill COVID-19 non-sedated adult patients compared with non-COVID-19 controls. METHODS: COVID-19 patients who self-extracted transurethral or suprapubic catheters needing a urological intervention were prospectively included (group A). Demographic data, medical and nursing records, comorbidities and nervous system symptoms were evaluated. Agitation, anxiety and delirium were assessed by the Richmond Agitation and Sedation Scale (RASS). The control group B were non-COVID-19 patients who self-extracted transurethral/suprapubic catheter in a urology unit (subgroup B1) and geriatric unit (subgroup B2), requiring a urological intervention in the same period. RESULTS: 37 men and 11 women were enrolled in group A. Mean RASS score was 3.1 ± 1.8. There were 5 patients in subgroup B1 and 11 in subgroup B2. Chronic comorbidities were more frequent in group B than the COVID-19 group (P<0.01). COVID-19 patients had a significant difference in RASS score (P<0.006) and catheter self-extraction events (P<0.001). Complications caused by traumatic catheter extractions (severe urethrorrhagia, longer hospital stay) were greater in COVID-19 patients. CONCLUSION: This is the first study focusing on the prevalence and complications of catheter self-removal in COVID-19 patients. An increased prevalence of urological complications due to agitation and delirium related to COVID-19 has been demonstrated-the neurological sequelae of COVID-19 must be considered during hospitalisation.

An Italian multicenter analysis of emergency admissions and treatment of upper tract urolithiasis during the lockdown and reopening phases of the COVID-19 pandemic: Are we ready for a second wave of the outbreak?

OBJECTIVES: To assess if the lockdown period (March-April 2020) during the coronavirus disease-19 outbreak in Italy influenced the number, presentation, and treatment of urgent admissions to the emergency department for ureteral lithiasis, and to evaluate the same variables during the reopening phase (May-June 2020). METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of patients admitted to the emergency department of three different hospitals (two coronavirus disease-19 hubs). Demographics and data on acute pyelonephritis, acute kidney injury, urinoma, hematuria, inpatient admission/discharge home, and type of treatment were gathered and compared with the same periods in 2019. RESULTS: A total of 516 patients were admitted during the study period, of whom 62.4% were male. Their mean age was 58.86 ± 16.24 years. The number of admissions decreased significantly, by 51.25% (P = 0.003), during lockdown compared to 2019 (78 vs 160 admissions). The number of admissions in the reopening phase (May-June 2020) was in line with that in 2019 (n = 138). The number of hospitalizations (P = 0.005), acute obstructive pyelonephritis (P = 0.019), and complications (P = 0.02) was statistically significantly higher during lockdown compared to 2019. The increase in the rate of surgical procedures nearly reached significance (P = 0.059). The odds of having complications and being hospitalized were almost fivefold (odds ratio 4.68, 95% confidence interval 1.98-11.07) and twofold greater (odds ratio 2.39, 95% confidence interval 1.29-4.43) compared to the same period in 2019. No difference was noted between May-June 2020 and 2019. CONCLUSION: The coronavirus disease-19 lockdown period provoked a meaningful reduction in symptomatic ureteral lithiasis admission. Most patients presented with complicated disease, which required an increased rate of interventional procedures compared to the equivalent period in 2019. Admissions reverted to normal levels during the reopening phase.

Delayed surgery for localised and metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis for the COVID-19 pandemic.

PURPOSE: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to the cancellation or deferment of many elective cancer surgeries. We performed a systematic review on the oncological effects of delayed surgery for patients with localised or metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) in the targeted therapy (TT) era. METHOD: The protocol of this review is registered on PROSPERO(CRD42020190882). A comprehensive literature search was performed on Medline, Embase and Cochrane CENTRAL using MeSH terms and keywords for randomised controlled trials and observational studies on the topic. Risks of biases were assessed using the Cochrane RoB tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. For localised RCC, immediate surgery [including partial nephrectomy (PN) and radical nephrectomy (RN)] and delayed surgery [including active surveillance (AS) and delayed intervention (DI)] were compared. For metastatic RCC, upfront versus deferred cytoreductive nephrectomy (CN) were compared. RESULTS: Eleven studies were included for quantitative analysis. Delayed surgery was significantly associated with worse cancer-specific survival (HR 1.67, 95% CI 1.23-2.27, p < 0.01) in T1a RCC, but no significant difference was noted for overall survival. For localised ≥ T1b RCC, there were insufficient data for meta-analysis and the results from the individual reports were contradictory. For metastatic RCC, upfront TT followed by deferred CN was associated with better overall survival when compared to upfront CN followed by deferred TT (HR 0.61, 95% CI 0.43-0.86, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Noting potential selection bias, there is insufficient evidence to support the notion that delayed surgery is safe in localised RCC. For metastatic RCC, upfront TT followed by deferred CN should be considered.

Will "Hybrid" Meetings Replace Face-To-Face Meetings Post COVID-19 Era? Perceptions and Views From The Urological Community.

OBJECTIVE: To understand the preference and role of 'hybrid' urological meetings compared to face-to-face and online meetings during and after COVID-19 pandemic. The secondary outcome was finding out the most preferable webinar setting. METHODS: An online global survey was done between June 06 and July 05, 2020, using SurveyMonkey. The target participants were urology healthcare providers. The survey was disseminated via mailing lists and the Twitter platform. RESULTS: A total of 526 urology providers from 56 countries responded to the survey and it was completed by 73.3%. Participants' overall experience was better in a face-to-face meeting, followed by a hybrid and webinar only meeting. While opportunities for networking was identified as high in face-to-face meeting, online webinars were more cost effective, and learning opportunity and reach of audience was higher for hybrid meetings. For online webinar format, Zoom platform was used by 73% and majority (69%) saw it on their laptop or desktop. The preference was for a 1-hour webinar in the evenings with 3-5 speakers. Urology residents rated face-to-face meetings to have better cost-effectiveness when compared to consultants. Post COVID-19, more than half of all respondents would prefer hybrid meetings compared to the other formats. CONCLUSION: While there will be a place for face-to-face meetings, COVID-19 situation has led to a preference towards hybrid meetings which is ideal for a global reach in the future. It is plausible that most urological associations will move towards a hybrid model for their meetings.

Patient's Fear of Being Infected, Another Complication of COVID-19 Outbreak: A Lesson Learned from a Case of Life-Threatening Urolithiasis.

Background: Because of the fear of being infected with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), patients with nephrolithiasis, who choose to stay home, may suffer serious complications such as obstructive uropathy, deterioration of renal function, sepsis, and death. We present such a case that led to renal failure and necessitated emergent urologic intervention. Case Presentation: A 60-year-old Caucasian man presented with right flank pain, dizziness, and dyspnea at the emergency room. History was significant for a previous diagnosis of right renal pelvic stone that was scheduled for retrograde intrarenal surgery before the pandemic lockdown. Upon evaluation, he was found to have an elevated creatinine of 40.2 mg/dL, bilateral hydronephrosis, pericardial and pleural effusion. The patient underwent emergency hemodialysis, followed by preliminary bilateral percutaneous nephrostomy, and subsequently by ureteral stenting. He was discharged stable with the future plan for endoscopic stone management. Conclusions: In the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, urologists should follow up all known kidney stone patients, regularly assess their condition, and prioritize those who need urgent care. Patient education and telemedicine are useful tools for this purpose and may help minimize the risk of complications during a community lockdown.

A Global Survey on the Impact of COVID-19 on Urological Services.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization (WHO) declared coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) as a pandemic on March 11, 2020. The impact of COVID-19 on urological services in different geographical areas is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the global impact of COVID-19 on urological providers and the provision of urological patient care. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A cross-sectional, web-based survey was conducted from March 30, 2020 to April 7, 2020. A 55-item questionnaire was developed to investigate the impact of COVID-19 on various aspects of urological services. Target respondents were practising urologists, urology trainees, and urology nurses/advanced practice providers. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary outcome was the degree of reduction in urological services, which was further stratified by the geographical location, degree of outbreak, and nature and urgency of urological conditions. The secondary outcome was the duration of delay in urological services. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 1004 participants responded to our survey, and they were mostly based in Asia, Europe, North America, and South America. Worldwide, 41% of the respondents reported that their hospital staff members had been diagnosed with COVID-19 infection, 27% reported personnel shortage, and 26% had to be deployed to take care of COVID-19 patients. Globally, only 33% of the respondents felt that they were given adequate personal protective equipment, and many providers expressed fear of going to work (47%). It was of concerning that 13% of the respondents were advised not to wear a surgical face mask for the fear of scaring their patients, and 21% of the respondents were advised not to discuss COVID-19 issues or concerns on media. COVID-19 had a global impact on the cut-down of urological services, including outpatient clinic appointments, outpatient investigations and procedures, and urological surgeries. The degree of cut-down of urological services increased with the degree of COVID-19 outbreak. On average, 28% of outpatient clinics, 30% of outpatient investigations and procedures, and 31% of urological surgeries had a delay of >8 wk. Urological services for benign conditions were more affected than those for malignant conditions. Finally, 47% of the respondents believed that the accumulated workload could be dealt with in a timely manner after the COVID-19 outbreak, but 50% thought the postponement of urological services would affect the treatment and survival outcomes of their patients. One of the limitations of this study is that Africa, Australia, and New Zealand were under-represented. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 had a profound global impact on urological care and urology providers. The degree of cut-down of urological services increased with the degree of COVID-19 outbreak and was greater for benign than for malignant conditions. One-fourth of urological providers were deployed to assist with COVID-19 care. Many providers reported insufficient personal protective equipment and support from hospital administration. PATIENT SUMMARY: Coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) has led to significant delay in outpatient care and surgery in urology, particularly in regions with the most COVID-19 cases. A considerable proportion of urology health care professionals have been deployed to assist in COVID-19 care, despite the perception of insufficient training and protective equipment.