Emergency Urology procedures during the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK: A 3-month prospective study.

OBJECTIVE: COVID-19 resulted in Regional tiered restrictions being introduced across the UK with subsequent implications for planned and emergency surgical care. Specific to Merseyside, Tier 4, Tier 2 and Tier 5 restrictions were introduced in late 2020 and early 2021. The purpose of this study was to examine the nature and workload of emergency urological procedures during three different national lockdown Tiers in the North West of England. METHOD: A 3-month prospective study examining all emergency urological activity was conducted from November 2020 when Tier 4 restrictions were introduced and included Tier 2 restrictions in December and then concluded at the end of January 2021 when Tier 5 restrictions were in place. Data was obtained by identifying patients using the electronic theatre listing system. RESULTS: A total of 71 emergency cases were performed (24 in November (Tier 4), 28 in December (Tier 2), 19 in January 2021 (Tier 5)) with 15 different types of procedures performed. The most frequently performed procedure was stent insertion (36), followed by scrotal exploration (10). The least commonly performed procedure was suprapubic catheter insertion under general anaesthesia (1). One patient required transfer to a different hospital. In total 6 calls were made by general surgery and 3 by gynaecology for urgent urological assistance in theatre. Three urology patients returned to the theatre as emergencies following elective procedures. CONCLUSION: Unlike the Spring lockdown, acute urological presentations requiring operative intervention still presented daily. Of the 71 cases performed, most occurred in Tier 2. Stent insertion was the most commonly performed procedure, with the majority of the cases performed by registrars.

Site of local anaesthesia in transrectal ultrasonography-guided 12-core prostate biopsy: does it make a difference?

OBJECTIVE: To prospectively compare the efficacy of bi-basal vs bi-apical periprostatic nerve block (PPNB) during 12-core prostate biopsy guided by transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS), and to evaluate the pain experienced on inserting the probe compared to the biopsy procedure, as PPNB with lignocaine local anaesthesia has been used for over a decade for minimizing pain during prostatic biopsy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In all, 143 men who were to have a TRUS-guided prostate biopsy were systematically randomized to two groups, to receive PPNB at the apex or base. A 10-cm visual analogue score was used to record the pain experienced during probe insertion, the biopsy and just before to leaving the department . RESULTS: The mean pain score on biopsy in the apical group was similar to that of the basal group (apex 1.9, base 1.6, P = 0.36). Probe introduction produced a significantly higher pain score (probe 2.2, biopsy 1.7, P < 0.001) than at the biopsy. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who experienced greater pain with the introduction of the probe also reported more pain with the biopsy procedure. The site of local anaesthetic before prostatic biopsy showed no significant difference in pain scores. Older men tolerated the procedure better. Analgesia after PPNB at near either the apex or base appears equal, regardless of the site of injection. We suggest that topical perianal anaesthetic agents could significantly reduce not only pain perception, but also improve tolerance.

Reinvestigation of patients with a diagnosis of interstitial cystitis: common things are sometimes common.

PURPOSE: We tested the accuracy of the diagnosis and the value of each step of the diagnostic process in a group of patients undergoing reinvestigation of interstitial cystitis (IC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 61 patients with a provisional diagnosis of IC underwent systematic reinvestigation by a pathway involving a thorough history and physical examination, a rigorous search for urinary infection, frequency volume records, urodynamics and cystoscopy under general anesthesia. Abnormalities detected in the course of this pathway were treated before proceeding with further investigation. RESULTS: The diagnosis of IC was confirmed or considered possible in only 34 cases (55%). Common alternative diagnoses included recurrent urinary tract infections, detrusor overactivity and vaginal candidiasis. Of 5 male patients only 1 was confirmed to have IC. The original diagnosis was overturned by history and physical examination (including urine cultures) in 11 cases, by urodynamic investigation in 11 and by cystoscopy in 5. CONCLUSIONS: While IC remains a diagnosis of exclusion, active exclusion of all possible causes of similar symptoms using a thorough investigative algorithm is imperative. Urodynamic investigation, together with a thorough history and physical examination, remains an important component of the diagnostic pathway.