Impacts of the COVID-19 outbreak on visits and treatments for patients with ureteral stones in a general hospital emergency department.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 is a challenge for both patients and physicians in emergency department (ED). This study was aimed to report the impacts of the COVID-19 outbreak on visits and treatments for patients with ureteral stones in a general hospital ED. METHODS: The patients with ureteral stones were collected from 24 January to 24 March 2020 during the COVID-19 outbreak in Beijing. Two periods were divided for study: 24 January to 24 February (Period 1) and 25 February to 24 March (Period 2). Data on patients' characteristics, attendance, visual analog scale (VAS) scores, stone features, and final treatment choices were retrieved from the computer and compared with the data in the same periods in 2019. RESULTS: The study included 376 patients with ureteral stones during the COVID-19 outbreak periods in 2020 and 343 patients during the same periods in 2019. Compared with the same periods in 2019, the number of patients with ureteral stones was less in Period 1 (137 vs 163) but had a rebound phenomenon in Period 2 (239 vs 180). The visit frequency was significantly reduced (2.6 ± 0.4 vs 3.6 ± 0.8, p < 0.01) and the VAS scores and the onset time increased (7.7 ± 1.3 vs 5.5 ± 1.6, p < 0.01; 7.4 ± 1.8 vs 8.2 ± 1.5, p < 0.01, respectively) in Period 1. More patients chose oral analgesics medication to release from renal colic in the COVID-19 outbreak period instead of ESWL and intravenous analgesics medication (Period 1, 54.0% vs 20.2%, p < 0.01; Period 2, 20.9% vs 13.3%, p = 0.044; respectively). However, the percentage of patients underwent endoscopy surgery in outbreak period showed no significant difference compared with that in 2019. CONCLUSION: These results showed that the COVID-19 outbreak can directly affect the visits and final treatment choices for patients with ureteral stones.

Treatment management of COVID-19 positive patients with renal colic secondary to distal ureteral stone.

OBJECTIVE: In this study, we aimed to contribute to the literature by sharing and evaluating the clinical characteristics and our treatment and follow-up approaches in patients in the COVID-19 positive treatment process who had presented to our hospital's emergency department with a distal ureteral stone and to examine the effects of the pandemic and disease in this group of patients. METHOD: The study included 14 patients infected with COVID-19 who had presented to the Erzurum City Hospital Emergency Department between August 2020 and December 2020 with the complaint of renal colic in which distal ureteral stones were detected in the tests. The demographic and clinical characteristics of patients, laboratory and radiological examinations, characteristics of ureteral stones, details of treatments applied to patients, treatment procedures of patients who had undergone surgical treatment, patient files, visit and operation notes and the patient discharge reports were retrospectively reviewed and evaluated. RESULTS: The study included 14 patients. The average age of the patients was 35.7 (±14.35). The average stone size was 6.2 (±1.8) mm. Analgesic treatment and MET for distal ureteral stones were begun in 11 (78.6%) of the patients. Pain control was achieved in nine patients (64.2%) with analgesic treatment and MET, and the stone was removed without invasive intervention. Surgical intervention was performed in a total of five patients (35.7%). CONCLUSION: In most COVID-19 infected patients with renal colic and a distal ureteral stone, results can be obtained using MET. Patients with a distal ureteral stone and persistent renal colic can be safely and effectively treated by endoscopic ureteral stone treatment after taking necessary precautions. Prospective, randomised, and controlled studies are required on this subject.

Assessment of trends and clinical presentation in the emergency department of patients with renal colic during the COVID-19 pandemic era. / Evaluación de las tendencias y presentación clínica de pacientes con cólico nefrítico que acuden al servicio de urgencias durante la era pandémica del COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION: We hypothesized that the recent COVID-19 pandemic may lead to a delay in renal colic patients presenting to the Emergency Department due to the fear of getting infected. This delay may lead to a more severe clinical condition at presentation with possible complications for the patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Retrospective review of data collected from three institutions from Spain and Italy. Patients who presented to Emergency Department with unilateral or bilateral renal colic caused by imaging confirmed urolithiasis during the 45 days before and after each national lockdown were included. Data collected included patients' demographics, biochemical urine and blood tests, radiological tests, signs, symptoms and the therapeutic management. Analysis was performed between two groups, Group A: patients presenting prior to the national lockdown date; and Group B: patients presenting after the national lockdown date. RESULTS: A total of 397 patients presented to Emergency Department with radiology confirmed urolithiasis and were included in the study. The number of patients presenting to Emergency Department with renal/ureteric colic was 285 (71.8%) patients in Group A and 112 (28.2%) patients in Group B (p<0.001). The number of patients reporting a delay in presentation was 135 (47.4%) in Group A and 63 (56.3%) in Group B (p=0.11). At presentation, there were no statistical differences between Group A and Group B regarding the serum creatinine level, C reactive protein, white blood cell count, fever, oliguria, flank pain and hydronephrosis. In addition, no significant differences were observed with the length of stay, Urology department admission requirement and type of therapy. CONCLUSION: Data from our study showed a significant reduction in presentations to Emergency Department for renal colic after the lockdown in Spain and Italy. However, we did not find any significant difference with the length of stay, Urology department admission requirement and type of therapy.

A rare case of spontaneous parenchymal kidney explosion in a patient with ureteral obstruction caused by a single stone.

INTRODUCTION: Spontaneous rupture of kidney may involve collecting system or parenchyma. Parenchymal rupture usually occurs in patients with renal cell carcinoma, angiomyolipoma, renal cysts, arteriovenous malformation or vascular diseases such as periarteritis nodosa. Collecting system rupture is usually a rare complication of obstructive urolithiasis. We describe the unusual cases of spontaneous kidney rupture in patients with acute urinary obstruction. CASE PRESENTATION: The case report describes the left parenchymal kidney explosion related to ipsilateral ureteral obstruction caused by a single ureteral stone. The patient reached our emergency department with acute left flank pain and massive haematuria. At the moment of admission, the patient was in stage III hypovolemic shock and had a lower haematocrit (haemoglobin = 4.9 g/dL). Despite blood transfusions, emergency surgical exploration, extrafascial nephrectomy and intensive support care, the patient died twelve hours after surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Parenchymal renal rupture can be a life-threatening emergency. Despite its rarity, in the differential diagnosis of acute abdomen, parenchymal renal rupture should always be considered in patients with abdominal pain and an anamnesis or history of urinary stones, pointing out the need of early diagnosis also in benign urological conditions.

Implementation of a Ureteric Colic Telemedicine Service: A Mixed Methods Quality Improvement Study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of a telemedicine service for ureteric colic patients in reducing the number of unnecessary face-to-face consultations and shortening waiting time for appointments. METHODS: A telemedicine workflow was implemented as a quality improvement study using the Plan-Do-Study-Act method. All patients presenting with ureteric colic without high-risk features of fever, severe pain, and hydronephrosis, were recruited, and face-to-face appointments to review scan results were replaced with phone consultations. Data were prospectively collected over 3 years (January 2017 to December 2019). Patient outcomes including the reduction in face-to-face review visits, time to review, reattendance and intervention rates, were tracked in an interrupted time-series analysis, and qualitative feedback was obtained from patients and clinicians. RESULTS: Around 53.2% of patients presenting with ureteric colic were recruited into the telemedicine workflow. A total of 465 patients (46.2%) had normal scan results and 250 patients (24.9%) did not attend their scan appointments, hence reducing the number of face-to-face consultations by 71.1%. A total of 230 patients (22.9%) required subsequent follow-up with urology, while 61 patients (6.1%) were referred to other specialties. Mean (SD) time to review was 30.0 (6.2) days, 6-month intervention rate was 3.4% (n = 34) and unplanned reattendance rate was 3.2% (n = 32). Around 93.1% of patients reported satisfaction with the service. CONCLUSION: The ureteric colic telemedicine service successfully and sustainably reduced the number of face-to-face consultations and time to review without compromising on patient safety. The availability of this telemedicine service has become even more important in helping us provide care to patients with ureteric colic in the current COVID-19 pandemic.