Comparison of Management and Outcomes of Symptomatic Urolithiasis During the COVID-19 Pandemic to a Comparative Cohort.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the clinical presentation and outcomes for patients who presented with symptomatic urolithiasis during the initial months of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed Emergency Department (ED) presentations from a Philadelphia healthcare system for symptomatic urolithiasis between March and June 2020 and compared these with presentations for the same time period from the year prior. Patient demographics, stone characteristics, management, and clinical outcomes were compared between the 2 years. RESULTS: One hundred and thirty-nine patients presented during 2020 compared to 269 in 2019. There were fewer patients who presented during the initial COVID-19 pandemic surge who had obesity (37.41% vs 49.44%, P = .024), hyperlipidemia (18.71% vs 31.60, P = .006), and asthma (5.76% vs 16.73%, P = .002). Although overall stone characteristics did not differ between the 2 groups, a larger proportion of patients in 2020 presented with an obstructing stone (81.16% vs 64.1%, P = .001). Patients who presented during the COVID-19 pandemic did not have higher rates of infection, acute kidney injury, or complications. Rates of surgical modalities, emergent procedures, and discharges from the ED were similar between the 2 years. CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 pandemic initial surge resulted in fewer ED presentations for symptomatic urolithiasis; however, patients who did present were more likely to have obstructing stones, perhaps due to delaying presentation to avoid COVID-19 exposure in the ED. Despite higher rates of obstruction, clinical outcomes and morbidity were similar.

A Critical Appraisal of the American College of Surgeons Medically Necessary, Time Sensitive Procedures (MeNTS) Scoring System, Urology Consensus Recommendations and Individual Surgeon Case Prioritization for Resumption of Elective Urological Surgery During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

PURPOSE: Resumption of elective urology cases postponed due to the COVID-19 pandemic requires a systematic approach to case prioritization, which may be based on detailed cross-specialty questionnaires, specialty specific published expert opinion or by individual (operating) surgeon review. We evaluated whether each of these systems effectively stratifies cases and for agreement between approaches in order to inform departmental policy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We evaluated triage of elective cases postponed within our department due to the COVID-19 pandemic (March 9, 2020 to May 22, 2020) using questionnaire based surgical prioritization (American College of Surgeons Medically Necessary, Time Sensitive Procedures [MeNTS] instrument), consensus/expert opinion based surgical prioritization (based on published urological recommendations) and individual surgeon based surgical prioritization scoring (developed and managed within our department). Lower scores represented greater urgency. MeNTS scores were compared across consensus/expert opinion based surgical prioritization and individual surgeon based surgical prioritization scores. RESULTS: A total of 204 cases were evaluated. Median MeNTS score was 50 (IQR 44, 55), and mean consensus/expert opinion based surgical prioritization and individual surgeon based surgical prioritization scores were 2.6±0.6 and 2.2±0.8, respectively. Median MeNTS scores were 52 (46.5, 57.5), 50 (44.5, 54.5) and 48 (43.5, 54) for individual surgeon based surgical prioritization priority 1, 2 and 3 cases (p=0.129), and 55 (51.5, 57), 47.5 (42, 56) and 49 (44, 54) for consensus/expert opinion based surgical prioritization priority scores 1, 2, and 3 (p=0.002). There was none to slight agreement between consensus/expert opinion based surgical prioritization and individual surgeon based surgical prioritization scores (Kappa 0.131, p=0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Questionnaire based, expert opinion based and individual surgeon based approaches to case prioritization result in significantly different case prioritization. Questionnaire based surgical prioritization did not meaningfully stratify urological cases, and consensus/expert opinion based surgical prioritization and individual surgeon based surgical prioritization frequently disagreed. The strengths and weaknesses of each of these systems should be considered in future disaster planning scenarios.