ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Overall incidence of stones in kidney transplant recipients is 1%. En-bloc kidney transplant is a rare anatomical condition in which kidney stones treatment can be extremely difficult to treat. As far as we know, no cases of staghorn calculi in en-bloc kidney transplant have been published so far. CASE PRESENTATION: A 27-year-old woman presented to the Emergency Department because of asthenia, adynamia and weight loss associated with lower urinary tract symptoms and subfebrile temperature. Ten years before, she had undergone an en-bloc kidney transplant because of end-stage renal disease secondary to perinatal asphyxia syndrome. One kidney was implanted capo-volta in the right iliac fossa and the other one in the right flank. NCCT scan showed incomplete staghorn calculi in the iliac fossa transplanted kidney. Besides, severe dilation of the native and the right flank transplanted kidney, due to two ureteral stones of 6 and 7 mm impacted in the uretero-ureteral anastomosis, was found. After hospital admission and under ceftriaxone prophylaxis, an attempt to perform primary RIRS following our COVID protocol was carried out. Nevertheless, we ended up placing a JJ stent because once the guidewire passed through the ureteral stones, purulent material came out from the ureteral orifice. She stayed 9 days in-hospital for management of postobstructive polyuria and was discharged with oral antibiotics. Three weeks afterward, we removed the stent and performed flexible ureteroscopy and holmium laser lithotripsy of the ureteral stones. In the same procedure, we performed Mini-ECIRS (21 French) previous ultrasound-guided upper pole puncture. Postoperative NCCT scan showed neither residual fragments nor operative complications. CONCLUSION: This is the first clinical case reporting Mini-ECIRS in a patient with an en-bloc kidney transplant. This endourological approach seems to be a feasible, safe and effective approach to treat stones in this anatomically challenging condition.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, urology was one of the specialties with the lowest rates of telemedicine and videoconferencing use. Common barriers to the implementation of telemedicine included a lack of technological literacy, concerns with reimbursement, and resistance to changes in the workplace. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic declared in March 2020, the delivery of urological services globally has quickly shifted to telemedicine to account for the mass clinical, procedural, and operative cancellations, inadequate personal protective equipment, and shortage of personnel. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate current telemedicine usage by urologists, urologists' perceptions on the necessity of in-person clinic appointments, the usability of telemedicine, and the current barriers to its implementation. METHODS: We conducted a global, cross-sectional, web-based survey to investigate the use of telemedicine before and after the COVID-19 pandemic. Urologists' perceived usability of telemedicine was assessed using a modified Delphi approach to create questions based on a modified version of the validated Telehealth Usability Questionnaire (TUQ). For the purposes of this study, telemedicine was defined as video calls only. RESULTS: A total of 620 urologists from 58 different countries and 6 continents participated in the survey. Prior to COVID-19, 15.8% (n=98) of urologists surveyed were using telemedicine in their clinical practices; during the pandemic, that proportion increased to 46.1% (n=283). Of the urologists without telemedicine experience, interest in telemedicine usage increased from 43.7% (n=139) to 80.8% (n=257) during the COVID-19 pandemic. Among urologists that used telemedicine during the pandemic, 80.9% (n=244) were interested in continuing to use it in their practice. The three most commonly used platforms were Zoom, Doxy.me, and Epic, and the top three barriers to implementing telemedicine were patients' lack of technological comprehension, patients' lack of access to the required technology, and reimbursement concerns. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to quantify the use, usability, and pervading interest in telemedicine among urologists during the COVID-19 pandemic. In the face of this pandemic, urologists' usage of telemedicine nearly tripled, demonstrating their ability to adopt and adapt telemedicine into their practices, but barriers involving the technology itself are still preventing many from utilizing it despite increasing interest.