An Italian multicenter analysis of emergency admissions and treatment of upper tract urolithiasis during the lockdown and reopening phases of the COVID-19 pandemic: Are we ready for a second wave of the outbreak?

Septic and febrile kidney stone presentations during the COVID-19 pandemic What is the effect of reduced access to care during pandemic restrictions?

INTRODUCTION

During the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, hospitals shifted their resources and focus toward COVID-19 care and non-deferrable conditions. Renal colic is one of the most common urologic presentations to the emergency department (ED ). In our study, we examined whether there was an increase in septic/febrile stone presentations to the ED requiring ureteral stent insertion after the public health restrictions during the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

We carried out a retrospective cohort study and reviewed charts of septic/febrile stone patients requiring ureteral stent insertion from January 1, 2019, to March 16, 2020 (pre-COVID) and July 1, 2020, to December 31, 2021 (intra-COVID) at the Queen Elizabeth II Health Sciences Centre in Halifax, NS. The incidence of septic/febrile stone presentation, baseline characteristics, and perioperative outcomes were captured.

RESULTS

There were 54 patients in the pre-COVID group and 74 patients in the intra- COVID group. There were no statistically significant differences found in baseline or stone characteristics between the two groups (p>0.05). Patients in the intra-COVID group were found to have a longer presentation to operating room time when compared to the pre- COVID cohort (U=961.00, p=0.04). The intra-COVID group had 20 more cases of septic stone presentations compared to the pre-COVID group at the 15-month mark (pre-COVID, n=54; intra-COVID, n=74).

CONCLUSIONS

We found increased time to operative intervention in the intra-COVID cohort compared to the pre-COVID cohort. The overall number of urgent and/or critically ill ureteric stone patients increased between cohorts but was not statistically significant.

Impact of COVID-19 on Uro-Oncological Patients: A Comprehensive Review of the Literature

Background: The aim of this paper is to discuss the impact of COVID-19 on patients with urological malignancies (prostate cancer, bladder and upper tract urothelial cancer, kidney cancer, penile and testicular cancer) and to review the available recommendations reported in the literature. Methods: A review was performed, through the PubMed database, regarding available recommendations reported in the literature, to identify studies examining the impact of COVID-19 on treatment and clinical outcomes (including upstaging, recurrence, and mortality) for uro-oncological patients. Results: The COVID-19 pandemic dramatically changed the urological guidelines and patients' access to screening programs and follow-up visits. Great efforts were undertaken to guarantee treatments to high-risk patients although follow up was not always possible due to recurrent surges, and patients with lower risk cancers had to wait for therapies. Conclusions: Physically and mentally, uro-oncological patients paid a heavy price during the COVID-19 pandemic. Long term data on the "costs" of clinical decisions made during the COVID-19 pandemic are still to be revealed and analyzed.

Impact of COVID-19 on the management and outcomes of ureteric stones in the UK: a multicentre retrospective study

OBJECTIVES

To determine if management of ureteric stones in the UK changed during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and whether this affected patient outcomes.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We conducted a multicentre retrospective study of adults with computed tomography-confirmed ureteric stone disease at 39 UK hospitals during a pre-pandemic period (23/3/2019-22/6/2019) and a period during the pandemic (the 3-month period after the first severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 case at individual sites). The primary outcome was success of primary treatment modality, defined as no further treatment required for the index ureteric stone. Our study protocol was published prior to data collection.

RESULTS

A total of 3735 patients were included (pre-pandemic 1956 patients; pandemic 1779 patients). Stone size was similar between groups (P > 0.05). During the pandemic, patients had lower hospital admission rates (pre-pandemic 54.0% vs pandemic 46.5%, P < 0.001), shorter mean length of stay (4.1 vs 3.3 days, P = 0.02), and higher rates of use of medical expulsive therapy (17.4% vs 25.4%, P < 0.001). In patients who received interventional management (pre-pandemic 787 vs pandemic 685), rates of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (22.7% vs 34.1%, P < 0.001) and nephrostomy were higher (7.1% vs 10.5%, P = 0.03); and rates of ureteroscopy (57.2% vs 47.5%, P < 0.001), stent insertion (68.4% vs 54.6%, P < 0.001), and general anaesthetic (92.2% vs 76.2%, P < 0.001) were lower. There was no difference in success of primary treatment modality between patient cohorts (pre-pandemic 73.8% vs pandemic 76.1%, P = 0.11), nor when patients were stratified by treatment modality or stone size. Rates of operative complications, 30-day mortality, and re-admission and renal function at 6 months did not differ between the data collection periods.

CONCLUSIONS

During the COVID-19 pandemic, there were lower admission rates and fewer invasive procedures performed. Despite this, there were no differences in treatment success or outcomes. Our findings indicate that clinicians can safely adopt management strategies developed during the pandemic to treat more patients conservatively and in the community.

Lessons learned after the disruption caused by COVID-19 in the management of urolithiasis: An example of adaptation in a high-volume center

Background

The aim was to determine the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on urolithiasis presentation and management.

Methods

In this retrospective study, we comparatively evaluated urgent and elective procedures due to urolithiasis during the early eight months of the COVID-19 pandemic (March 1, 2020, to October 31, 2020) compared to the same period a year before, and between waves. The student’s t-test, chi-square test, Mann–Whitney U test and Fisher’s exact test were used to compare the patients’ characteristics and outcomes between the two periods and waves.

Results

Five hundred and thirty procedures were included. The overall numbers of surgical procedures due to urolithiasis were similar between pre-pandemic and pandemic periods. Regarding elective surgery, our data draw attention to the increased complication rate in the pandemic times, but no statistically significant differences in terms of types of procedures and need for complementary treatments were observed. We noted that patterns of presentation of complicated renal colic were different during COVID-19 pandemic, with a higher number of days after the onset of symptoms and a higher proportion of patients presenting acute kidney injury. Furthermore, a significant increase of creatinine levels at presentation in first wave was detected, and a growth in the number of urgent procedures after the first wave was noted, owing to the delay in urolithiasis treatment and diagnosis.

Conclusion

The COVID-19 pandemic has negatively affected both urgent and elective management of urolithiasis. Lessons about the management of urolithiasis in this context should be learned to avoid fatal complications and improve standards of care.

[Lessons learned about the disruption caused by COVID-19 in the management of urolithiasis: An example of adaptation in a high-volume centre]

BACKGROUND

 The aim was to determine the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on urolithiasis presentation and management.

METHODS

 In this retrospective study we comparatively evaluated urgent and elective procedures due to urolithiasis during the early eight months of the COVID-19 pandemic (March 1, 2020 to October 31, 2020) compared to the same period a year before, and between waves. The student's t-test, chi-square test, Mann-Whitney U test and Fisher's exact test were used to compare the patients' characteristics and outcomes between the two periods and waves.

RESULTS

530 procedures were included. The overall number of surgical procedures due to urolithiasis were similar between pre-pandemic and pandemic periods. Regarding elective surgery, our data draw attention to the increased complication rate in the pandemic times, but no statistically significant differences in terms of types of procedures and need for complementary treatments were observed. We noted that patterns of presentation of complicated renal colic were different during COVID-19 pandemic, with a higher number of days after the onset of symptoms and a higher proportion of patients presenting acute kidney injury. Furthermore, a significant increase of creatinine levels at presentation in 1^st wave was detected. A growth in the number of urgent procedures after the 1^st wave was noted, owing to the delay in urolithiasis treatment and diagnosis.

CONCLUSION

The COVID-19 pandemic has negatively affected both urgent and elective management of urolithiasis. Lessons about the management of urolithiasis in this context should be learned to avoid fatal complications and improve standards of care.

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 healthcare services around the globe with possible worse outcomes. It has resulted in stretch of resources with cancelled 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 while 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 towards reduction in elective procedures with wide variations (shock wave lithotripsy 38-98%, PCNL 94-100% and ureteroscopy 8%-98%) There was a trend towards 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.

Does COVID-19 infection change the need for future surgical interventions? An exploratory analysis

Background: It is unknown whether recovery from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection leads to an increased need for common surgical procedures. Our objective was to conduct an exploratory analysis of surgical procedures performed after a documented COVID-19 infection.  Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using routinely collected data from the province of Ontario, Canada. We identified individuals with a positive COVID-19 test between February 1 2020 and May 31 2020, and matched them 1:2 with individuals who had a negative COVID-19 test during the same period. We used physician billing codes to identify the ten most frequent surgical procedures in the COVID-19 cohort. An at-risk period 30 days after the first positive COVID-19 swab (or matched index date in the control group) until November 30 2020 was used. Cox proportional hazard models (adjusted for important baseline differences) are reported with hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals.   Results: After exclusions and matching, we had 19,143 people in the COVID-19 cohort, and 38,286 people in the control cohort. The top ten surgical procedures were hand/wrist fracture fixation, cesarean-section, ureteral stent placement, cholecystectomy, treatment of an upper tract urinary stone, hysterectomy, femur fracture repair, hip replacement, transurethral prostatectomy, and appendectomy. There was a significantly reduced hazard of requiring upper tract renal stone surgery (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.50, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.29-0.87) or ureteral stent placement (aHR 0.54, 95%CI 0.36-0.82), or undergoing a cholecystectomy (aHR 0.43, 95%CI 0.26-0.71) among those with a prior positive COVID-19 test.   Conclusions: After a COVID-19 infection there is not an increased risk of needing several common surgical procedures. There appears to be a reduced risk of renal stone disease treatment and ureteral stent placement, and a reduced risk of cholecystectomy, however understanding the reasons for this will require further study.

[Epidemiology of urological emergencies in France]

INTRODUCTION

To report the epidemiology and the care pathway for urological emergencies in France for the official report of the 115th Congres Francais d'Urologie.

METHODS

We made a request to the Institut de Veille Sanitaire and its network Surveillance Sanitaire des Urgences et des Décès (SurSaUD®). Within this system, the OSCOUR® network (Organisation de la surveillance coordonnée des urgences) centralizes in real time the data of emergency visits from more than 720 emergency departments throughout the national territory (>93% of the national territory covered by the OSCOUR® network). For each emergency defined by its CIM-10 code, the following data were collected from 2014 to 2019: age, gender, length of stay and post-emergency status (hospitalization vs. return home).

RESULTS

From 2014 to 2019, urological emergencies represented on average 4.2% of all emergencies, with an average 591,080±66,782 passages/year including 25% that resulted in hospitalization. Infectious disease represented 35% of all urological emergencies. The 3 most common urologic emergencies were: renal colic, acute urine retention and hematuria for men; acute cystitis, pyelonephritis and renal colic for women.

CONCLUSION

In an analysis of the OSCOUR® (Organisation de la surveillance coordonnée des urgences) registry, we determined the epidemiological profiles of the main urological emergencies with contemporary data.