Prospective comparison of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy versus flexible ureterorenoscopy in patients with non-lower pole kidney stones under the COVID-19 pandemic.

Both shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) and flexible ureterorenoscopy (F-URS) are recommended as the first choice for non-lower pole kidney stones. Therefore, we conducted a prospective study to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and cost of SWL versus F-URS in patients with solitary non-lower pole kidney stones ≤ 20 mm under the COVID-19 pandemic. This prospective study was conducted in a tertiary hospital from June 2020 to April 2022. Patients who underwent lithotripsy (SWL or F-URS) for non-lower pole kidney stones were enrolled in this study. The stone-free rate (SFR), retreatment rate, complications, and cost were recorded. Propensity score-matched (PSM) analysis was performed. A total of 699 patients were finally included, of which 81.3% (568) were treated with SWL and 18.7% (131) underwent F-URS. After PSM, SWL showed equivalent SFR (87.9% vs. 91.1%, P = 0.323), retreatment rate (8.6% vs. 4.8%, P = 0.169), and adjunctive procedure (2.6% vs. 4.9%, P = 0.385) compared with F-URS. Complications were scarce and also comparable between SWL and F-URS (6.0% vs 7.7%, P > 0.05), while the incidence of ureteral perforation was higher in the F-URS group compared with the SWL group (1.5% vs 0%, P = 0.008). The hospital stay was significantly shorter (1 day vs 2 days, P < 0.001), and the cost was considerably less (1200 vs 30,083, P < 0.001) in the SWL group compared with the F-URS group. This prospective cohort demonstrated that SWL had equivalent efficacy with more safety and cost benefits than F-URS in treating patients with solitary non-lower pole kidney stones ≤ 20 mm. During the COVID-19 pandemic, SWL may have benefits in preserving hospital resources and limiting opportunity for virus transmission, compared to URS. These findings may guide clinical practice.

Urological stone disease: a 5-year update of stone management using Hospital Episode Statistics.

OBJECTIVE: To reassess the trends in upper urinary tract (UUT) stone disease burden and management in the UK during the last 5 years. METHODS: The present paper is our third quinquennial analysis of trends in the management of renal stones in England. Data were collected using the Hospital Episode Statistics database for the years 2015-2020 inclusive. These were then analysed, summarized and presented. RESULTS: The number of UUT stone episodes increased by 2.2% from 86 742 in 2014-2015 to 88 632 in 2019-2020 but annual prevalence remained static at 0.14%. The number of UUT stone episodes in those of working age has remained static but increased by 9% for patients aged > 60 years (from 27 329 to 29 842). The number of shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) treatments decreased by 6.8%. There was a further increase in the use of ureteroscopy (URS) between 2015 and 2020 of 18.9%. Within this subgroup, flexible URS had the most rapid increase in use, with a rise of 20.4% from 7108 to 8558 recorded cases. Over the 20-year period from 2000 to 2020 there was a remarkable 257% increase in URS cases. There was a further decline in open surgery for UUT stone disease by 40%. Stone surgery day-case numbers have increased by 14.7% (from 31 014 to 35 566), with a corresponding decline in the number of bed days of 14.3%. Emergency cases increased by 40%, while elective cases saw a slight increase of 1.9%. CONCLUSION: The present study shows a plateauing in the prevalence of UUT stone disease in England in the last 5 years, with a move towards day-case procedures and an increase in the proportion of emergency work. For the first time in England, URS has overtaken SWL as the most common procedure for treating UUT stone disease, which might reflect patients' or physicians' preference for a more effective definitive treatment.

The Impact of Early COVID-19 Pandemic on the Presentation and Management of Urinary Calculi Across the Globe: A Systematic Review.

Introduction: It is acknowledged that the COVID-19 pandemic has had a major impact on health care services around the globe with possible worse outcomes. It has resulted in stretch of resources with canceled or delayed procedures. Patients with urinary calculi have also suffered the negative impact. This systematic review aims to assess the impact of the early COVID-19 pandemic on the presentation and management of urinary calculi around the globe. Methods: We reviewed the impact of early COVID-19 on the clinically important aspects of stone disease using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) methodology. We searched Medline, Embase, and Central databases using themes of COVID-19 OR Sars-Cov-2 OR pandemic OR coronavirus AND kidney stone, urinary calculi, urolithiasis, and similar allied terms. Inclusion criteria were studies with data on both pre- and COVID-19 period covering one or more of eight clinical domains. Results: Our search returned 231 studies, after removal of duplicates, of which 18 studies were included for analysis. The number of patients presenting to hospital declined by 21%-70% at the beginning of the pandemic, whereas majority of studies reported increased associated complications. There are mixed reports in terms of delay to presentation and use of conservative management. There was a consistent trend toward reduction in elective procedures with wide variations (shockwave lithotripsy 38%-98%, percutaneous nephrolithotomy 94%-100%, and ureteroscopy 8%-98%). There was a trend toward increased nephrostomy insertion with the onset of the pandemic. Conclusion: This review demonstrated the differences in the number of patients presenting to hospital, complication rates, and management of urinary calculi, including surgical interventions, with the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. It offers baseline global information that would help understand the impact of early pandemic, variations in practices, and be useful for future comparisons.

Consensus Statement on Urinary Stone Treatment During a Pandemic: A Delphi Process from the Endourological Society TOWER Research Initiative.

Introduction: The novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has had a significant impact on the care of patients with urolithiasis. Recommendations and prioritization of endourologic surgical procedures vary among regions, and a comprehensive overall international directive is needed. We used the Delphi method to obtain international consensus on managing urolithiasis patients during the pandemic. Methods: A three-round Delphi process was used to elicit expert consensus (53 global key opinion leaders within the Endourological Society from 36 countries) on an extensive survey on management of endourologic patients in a pandemic. Questions addressed general management, inpatient and outpatient procedures, clinic visits, follow-up care, and best practices for suspension and resumption of routine care. Results: Consensus was achieved in 64/84 (76%) questions. Key consensus findings included the following: consultations should be delivered remotely when possible. Invasive surgical procedures for urolithiasis patients should be reserved for high-risk situations (infection, renal failure, etc.). To prevent aerosolization, spinal anesthesia is preferred over general, whenever feasible. Treatment of asymptomatic renal stones should be deferred. Primary definitive treatment of obstructing or symptomatic stones (both renal and ureteral) is preferred over temporizing drainage. Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy should be continued for obstructive ureteral stones. There was consensus on treatment modalities and drainage strategies depending on location and size of the stone. Conclusion: International endourologist members of the Endourological Society participated in this Delphi initiative to provide expert consensus on management of urolithiasis during a pandemic. These results can be applied currently and during a future pandemic.

Lessons Learnt (Clinical Outcomes and Cost Savings) from Virtual Stone Clinic and Their Application in the Era Post-COVID-19: Prospective Outcomes over a 6-Year Period from a University Teaching Hospital.

Introduction: We introduced a nurse-led telephone-based virtual stone clinic (VSC) follow-up for the surveillance of patients with asymptomatic renal calculi or those at a high risk of recurrent kidney stone disease (KSD). The aim of this study was to look at the outcomes of VSC and its role in the post-COVID era. Methods: Prospective outcomes audit was done for all patients referred to the VSC for a 6-year period (March 2014-April 2020). VSC is led by specialist stone nurses for on-going surveillance of KSD patients. Results: A total of 290 patients were seen (468 individual appointments; 1.6 ± 1.0 per patient), with a mean age of 57.0 ± 15.8 years (range: 17-92) and a men-women ratio of 3:2. The referral was for surveillance of asymptomatic small renal stones (230, 79.3%); history of recurrent stone disease (45, 15.5%); solitary kidneys (5, 1.7%); cystine stones; young age; and other conditions (10, 3.4%). The mean stone size was 5.0 ± 2.7 mm, followed up with kidney, ureter, and bladder radiograph (225, 77.6%) and ultrasound scan (USS) (65, 22.4%), for median duration of 12 months (range: 3-24 months). At the end, 132 patients (45.6%) remained in VSC, 106 (36.6%) were discharged, 47 (16.2%) returned to face-to-face clinic or treatment, and 5 (1.7%) had emergency admissions. Of 47 patients who returned, 23 (48.9%) developed new symptoms, 21 (44.6%) had stone growth, and 3 defaulted to face-to-face appointment. Thirty-five patients needed surgical intervention (URS-21, SWL-13, and PCNL-1) and 10 were managed conservatively. VSC reduced the cost per clinic appointment from £27.9 to £2 per patient (93% reduction), equating to a total saving of £12,006 for the study period. Conclusion: Nurse-led VSC not only provided a safe follow-up but also allowed to substantially reduce the cost of treatment by allowing patients to be either discharged or return to a face-to-face clinic or surgical intervention if needed. Post-COVID, this model using telemedicine will have a much wider uptake and further help to optimize health care resources.