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.

Development and validation of a predictive model for treatment outcome after emergency extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy in patients with symptomatic ureteral stones during the COVID-19 pandemic: in a large prospective cohort.

The predictors of treatment outcome after emergency extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) are not well characterized. Therefore, based on a large prospective cohort, we aimed to develop and validate a nomogram for predicting treatment outcome after emergency SWL in patients with symptomatic ureteral stones. The development cohort included 358 patients with symptomatic ureteral stones who underwent emergency SWL between June 2020 and August 2021 in our hospital. One hundred and twenty-nine patients with symptomatic ureteral stones participated in the validation cohort from September 2021 to April 2022. The data were prospectively recorded. The backward stepwise selection was applied using the likelihood ratio test with Akaike's information criterion as the stopping rule. The efficacy of this predictive model was assessed concerning its clinical usefulness, calibration, and discrimination. Finally, 15.6% (56/358) of patients in the development cohort and 14.0% (18/129) of those in the validation cohort suffered from stone-free failure after emergency SWL. We identified four predictors for stone-free failure: stone size, stone density, skin to stone distance (SSD), and degree of hydronephrosis. This model showed good discrimination with an area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curves of 0.935 (0.899-0.971) and good calibration (P = 0.059). The decision curve analysis showed that the model was clinically valuable. In this large prospective cohort, we found that stone size, stone density, SSD, and degree of hydronephrosis were predictors of treatment outcome after emergency SWL. This nomogram will be helpful in preoperative risk stratification to provide individualized treatment recommendations for each patient. Furthermore, early identification and appropriate management of patients may increase the success rate of emergency SWL during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Comparison of shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopy in patients with proximal ureteral stones under the COVID-19 pandemic.

PURPOSE: To compare the effectiveness, safety, and cost between ultrasound-guided shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) with an early second session protocol and ureteroscopy (URS) in patients with proximal ureteral stones using the propensity score matching (PSM) method based on a large prospective study. METHODS: This prospective study was conducted in a tertiary hospital from June 2020 to April 2022. Patients who underwent lithotripsy (SWL or URS) for proximal ureteral stones were enrolled. The stone-free rate (SFR), complications, and cost were recorded. PSM analysis was performed. RESULTS: A total of 1230 patients were included, of whom 81.1% (998) were treated with SWL and 18.9% (232) were treated with URS. After PSM, the SWL group had an equivalent SFR at one month (88.7 vs. 83.6%, P = 0.114) compared with the URS group. Complications were rare and comparable between the two groups, while the incidence of ureteral injuries was higher in the URS group compared with the SWL group (1.4 vs. 0%, P = 0.011). The hospital stay was significantly shorter (1 day vs. 2 days, P < 0.001), and the cost was considerably less (2000 vs. 25,053, P < 0.001) in the SWL group compared with the URS group. CONCLUSION: This prospective PSM cohort demonstrated that ultrasound-guided SWL with an early second session protocol had equivalent effectiveness but better safety and lower cost compared with URS in the treatment of patients with proximal ureteral stones, whether the stones were radiopaque or radiolucent. These results will facilitate treatment decisions for proximal ureteral stones.

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.

Stone disease in low- and middle-income countries: could augmented reality have a role in its management?

Urolithiasis is a global phenomenon. Cystolithiasis is common in parts of Africa due to low protein intake and dehydration from endemic diarrhoeal illnesses. Nephrolithiasis is less prevalent than in high-income countries, probably due to a variety of lifestyle issues, such as a more elemental diet, higher physical activity, and less obesity. Although renal stones are less common in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), the social and economic impacts of nephrolithiasis are still considerable; many stones present late or with complications such as upper urinary tract obstruction or urosepsis. These may lead to the development of chronic kidney disease, or end-stage renal failure in a small proportion of cases, conditions for which there is very poor provision in most LMICs. Early treatment of nephrolithiasis by the least invasive method possible can, however, reduce the functional consequences of urinary stone disease. Although extracorporeal lithotripsy is uncommon, and endoscopic interventions for stone are not widespread in most of Africa, percutaneous nephrolithotomy and ureteroscopic renal surgery are viable techniques in those regional centres with infrastructure to support them. Longitudinal mentoring has been shown to be a key step in the adoption of these minimally invasive procedures by local surgeons, something that has been difficult during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic due to travel restriction. Augmented reality (AR) technology is an alternative means of providing remote mentoring, something that has been trialled by Urolink, the MediTech Trust and other global non-governmental organisations during this period. Our preliminary experience suggests that this is a viable technique for promulgating skills in LMICs where appropriate connectivity exists to support remote communication. AR may also have long-term promise for decreasing the reliance upon short-term surgical visits to consolidate competence, thereby reducing the carbon footprint of global surgical education.

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.

Should we support prophylactic intervention for asymptomatic kidney stones? A retrospective cohort study with long-term follow-up.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the long-term outcomes of patients undergoing prophylactic intervention or active surveillance for asymptomatic kidney stones and identify factors influencing the outcomes. In this retrospective cohort study, we reviewed the medical records of patients with asymptomatic kidney stones in two institutes between November 2014 and November 2019. Standardized questions were asked via phone calls to supplement the outcomes. Pain, hydronephrosis, stone growth, serious infection, gross hematuria, and spontaneous passage were defined as stone-related events. Future intervention was also recorded to evaluate management. A total of 101 patients with 120 kidney units were enrolled in this study. The median follow-up time was 63 months. The patients were classified into the control group (79 cases) or exposure group (41 cases) according to whether they underwent prophylactic intervention before any stone-related events. Generally, the rates of stone-related events and future intervention were significantly different between the two groups (57.0 vs. 12.2%, p < 0.001; and 31.6 vs. 4.9%, p = 0.002, respectively). After applying stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighted, Cox regression suggested that patients who underwent prophylactic intervention were less likely to experience stone-related events and future intervention (HR = 0.175, and HR = 0.028, respectively). In conclusion, patients who underwent prophylactic intervention had a lower risk of stone-related events and future intervention, although they had some slight complications.

Acute extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for ureteric stones - 7-years' experience from a busy district general hospital.

OBJECTIVES: To demonstrate the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of acute extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) for ureteric stones we present our experience of ESWL in 530 ureteric stone cases, in the largest UK series we are aware of to date. ESWL is underutilised in ureteric stone management. The Getting It Right First Time (GIRFT) report showed just four units nationally treated >10% of acute ureteric stones with ESWL. Despite guideline recommendations as a first-line treatment option, few large volume studies have been published. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Retrospective review of prospectively collected data between December 2012 and February 2020 was performed. Data relating to patient demographics, stone characteristics, skin-to-stone distance, and treatment failure were collected. Cost analysis was conducted by the Trust's surgical financial manager. Multivariable analyses were performed to assess for predictors of ESWL success. RESULTS: A success rate of 68% (95% confidence interval 64%-72%) at 6 weeks was observed (n = 530). The median (interquartile range) number of treatment sessions was 2 (1, 2). Stone diameter was observed to be a predictor of ESWL success. The small number of stones treated of >13 mm or >1250 HU had an ~50% chance of successful treatment. Acute ureteric ESWL was less costly than acute ureterorenoscopy, consistent with findings from previous NHS studies. CONCLUSION: Acute ESWL is a safe, reliable, and financially viable treatment option for a wider spectrum of patients than reflected in international guidelines based on our large, heterogenous series. In the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) era, with theatre access reduced and concerns over aerosol generating procedures, acute ESWL remains an attractive first-line treatment option.

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.

Global Web Trends Analysis of Minimally Invasive Urinary Stone Treatment in the Last Decade and During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

With the rising incidence of urinary stone disease, web searches for stone treatments are increasing. Google Trends (GT) data for a 10-year period and during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic were used to investigate the trend variations for the most popular minimally invasive stone therapies based on time and region. GT can create a line graph that shows how interest in various territories has risen or decreased over time. Search terms were generated for extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (SWL), percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL), retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS), ureterorenoscopy (URS), and laparoscopic pyelolithotomy/ureterolithotomy. Using the "global" inquiry category, the data were included "worldwide" from January 1, 2009 to December 31, 2021. In recent years, Google and YouTube searches for total minimally invasive stone treatments have increased. RIRS, URS, and PCNL trends revealed a substantial rise in the regression analysis (p < 0.05), but SWL trends showed a significant reduction (p < 0.05). RIRS was the main intervention with interest growing most over time. Web searches for stone treatments decreased in the first period of the COVID-19 pandemic. To a rising degree of involvement, patients and physicians from all over the world utilize the internet to search for minimally invasive stone operations. RIRS, URS, and PCNL are becoming more popular in web trends and SWL still has the highest trend despite the decline in popularity recently. The number of trustworthy web-based tools about stone treatments should be increased, and patients and physicians should be directed to these sources.

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.

Association between time to lithotripsy and stone-free rate in patients with ureteral stones undergoing shock wave lithotripsy.

Early shock wave lithotripsy is associated with higher stone-free rate compared to delayed treatment of ureteral stones, but may constitute overtreatment because ureteral stones can pass spontaneously. We studied the association between time to treatment and stone-free rate in patients with ureteral stones to determine optimal shock wave lithotripsy timing. We retrospectively analyzed 537 patients undergoing shock wave lithotripsy for ureteral stones. Patients were divided into five groups according to time from onset of symptoms to lithotripsy-urgent (0-3 days), early (4-30 days), late (31-60 days), long-delayed lithotripsy (≥ 61 days), and asymptomatic. Stone-free rates were compared among groups. Mean age and stone size were 55.6 ± 13.1 years and 7.48 ± 3.29 mm, respectively. Mean number of shock wave lithotripsy sessions and stone-free rate were 1.37 and 91.6%, respectively, in the overall population. Stone-free rates were 95.2%, 96.8%, 91.3%, 86.3%, and 82.7% in urgent, early, late, long-delayed lithotripsy, and asymptomatic groups, respectively. Long-delayed lithotripsy and asymptomatic groups had significantly more lithotripsy sessions and lower stone-free rate, compared to urgent and early lithotripsy groups. In multivariate analysis, time to lithotripsy [long-delayed lithotripsy (odds ratio: 0.273, p = 0.004) and asymptomatic nature (odds ratio: 0.236, p = 0.002)] and age (odds ratio: 0.959, p = 0.003) independently affected stone-free rate. In conclusion, time to lithotripsy is a strong predictive factor for stone-free status following shock wave lithotripsy. Urgent shock wave lithotripsy did not improve stone-free rate if performed within 1 month. However, time to shock wave lithotripsy > 2 months reduced likelihood of stone-free status.

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.

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.