Comparative outcomes and cost of ambulatory PCNL in select kidney stone patients.

Limited hospital resources and access to care during the COVID-19 pandemic led us to implement a quality-improvement study investigating the feasibility, safety, and costs of same-day discharge after PCNL. The outcomes of 53 consecutive first-look PCNL patients included in a same-day discharge protocol during COVID-19 were compared to 54 first-look PCNL patients admitted for overnight observation. Control group had a similar comorbidity profile. Demographics, operative details, 30 day outcomes and readmissions, complications, and cost were compared between the two groups. Same-day discharge and one-day admission post-PCNL patients did not have significantly different baseline characteristics. The study group were more likely to have mini-PCNL (81% vs 50%, p < 0.01). Operative characteristics including median pre-operative stone burden (1.4 vs 1.7 cm3, p = 0.47) and post-operative stone burden (0.14 vs 0.18 cm3, p = 0.061) were similar between the two groups. Clavien-Dindo complication rates were lower in the study group compared to controls (0 vs 7%, p = 0.045). Readmission rates (2 vs 4%, p = 0.569) and ED visits (4 vs 6%, p = 0.662) were similar between the two groups. Total cost ($6,648.92 vs $9,466.07, p < 0.01) was significantly lower and operating margin ($4,475.96 vs $1,742.16, p < 0.01) was significantly higher for the same-day discharge group. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy may be performed in select patients without an increase in short-term complications, ED visits, or readmissions. Patients undergoing mini-PCNL are particularly amenable to same-day discharge, however, standard PCNL patients should not be excluded from consideration. Avoiding overnight admission decreases total cost and increased hospital operating margin.

Ambulatory Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy May Be Cost-Effective Compared to Standard Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy.

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) changed the practice of medicine in America. During the March 2020 lockdown, elective cases were canceled to conserve hospital beds/resources resulting in financial losses for health systems and delayed surgical care. Ambulatory percutaneous nephrolithotomy (aPCNL) has been shown to be safe and could be a strategy to ensure patients receive care that has been delayed, conserve hospital resources, and maximize cost-effectiveness. We aimed to compare the safety and cost-effectiveness of patients undergoing aPCNL against standard PCNL (sPCNL). Materials and Methods: Ninty-eight patients underwent PCNL at Indiana University Methodist Hospital, a tertiary referral center, by three expert surgeons from January 2020 to September 2020. The primary outcome of the study was to compare the 30-day rates of emergency department (ED) visits, readmissions, and complications between sPCNL and aPCNL. Secondary outcomes included cost analysis and stone-free rates (SFRs). Propensity score matching was performed to ensure the groups were balanced. Statistical analyses were performed using SAS 9.4 using independent t-tests for continuous variables and chi-square analyses for categorical variables. Results: Ninety-eight patients underwent PCNL during the study period (sPCNL = 75 and aPCNL = 23). After propensity score matching, 42 patients were available for comparison (sPCNL = 19 and aPCNL = 23). We found no difference in 30-day ED visits, readmissions, or complications between the two groups. aPCNL resulted in cost savings of $5327 ± 442 per case. SFRs were higher for aPCNL compared with sPCNL. Conclusions: aPCNL appears safe to perform and does not have a higher rate of ED visits or readmissions compared with sPCNL. aPCNL may also be cost-effective compared with sPCNL.

Consensus of multiple national guidelines: agreed strategies for initial stone management during COVID-19.

PURPOSE: To review the existing available information regarding urolithiasis management and the impact of COVID-19 on this, and propose recommendations for management of emergency urolithiasis presentations in the COVID-19 era. METHODS: Review of published guidelines produced by Urological Governing Bodies, followed by the literature review regarding urolithiasis management during the COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS: Consistent recommendations across guidelines and literature were that urolithiasis with concurrent sepsis or renal failure remains a urological emergency warranting urgent intervention within the pandemic environment. Ureteric stenting and percutaneous nephrostomy are considered equivalent for decompression in this setting, with both ideally to be performed under local anaesthesia where possible to spare ventilators and reduce aerosol-generating procedures. Greater utilization of medical expulsive therapy and dissolution chemolysis may occur during the pandemic, and longer indwelling stent times may be accepted while definite stone clearance is deferred. CONCLUSIONS: Urolithiasis will continue to be a source of emergency presentations requiring urgent intervention during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, it is possible to limit these interventions to decompression of the collecting system in the setting of concurrent obstruction or infection, performed under local anaesthesia to limit use of resources and minimise aerosol-generating procedures, with deferral of definitive management.