Is extracorporeal lithotripsy a first-line treatment for urinary stones today?

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and complications of extracorporeal lithotripsy (SWL) as a first-line treatment for renal and ureteral stones METHODS: Retrospective and observational study of all the patients treated with lithotripsy in a third level center between January 2014 and January 2021; characteristics of the patients, the stones, complications and results of SWL is recollected. Multivariate logistic regression of the factors associated with stone size reduction was performed. A statistical analysis of the factors associated with additional treatment after SWL and factors associated with complications is also executed. RESULTS: 1727 patients are included. Stone mean size was 9,5mm. 1540 (89.4%) patients presented reduction in stone size. In multivariate analysis, stone size (OR=1.13; p=0.00), ureteral location of the lithiasis (OR=1.15; p=0.052) and number of waves (p=0.002; OR=1.00) used in SWL are the factors associated with reduction of stone size. Additional treatment after lithotripsy was needed in 665 patients (38.5%). The factors associated with the need for retreatment were stone size (OR=1.131; p=0.000), number of waves (OR=1.000; p=0.000), energy (OR=1.005; p=0.000). 153 patients (8.8%) suffered complications after SWL. A statistically significant association was found between the size of the lithiasis (p=0.024, OR=1.054) and the previous urinary diversion (P=0.004, OR=0.571). CONCLUSION: Lithotripsy remains an effective treatment as the first line of therapy for reno-ureteral lithiasis with a low percentage of complications.

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 after the disruption caused by COVID-19 in the management of urolithiasis: An example of adaptation in a high-volume center]. / Lecciones aprendidas sobre el manejo de la urolitiasis tras los perjuicios causados por la COVID-19: un ejemplo de adaptación en un centro de alto volumen.

Introduction: 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 8 months of the COVID-19 pandemic (March 1, 2020, to October 31, 2020) compared to the same period a year before, and between waves. Fisher's exact test, Student's t-test, chi-square test and Mann-Whitney U test were used to compare the patients' characteristics and outcomes between the 2 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. Conclusions: 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.