OBJECTIVE: To evaluate differences in RFs estimation based on unenhanced computerized tomography (CT) versus X-rays/ultrasound after retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for kidney stones.
DESIGN: A retrospective analysis of data from 20 centers of adult patients who had RIRS was done (January 2018-August 2021).
METHODS: Exclusion criteria: ureteric stones, anomalous kidneys, bilateral renal stones. Patients were divided into two groups (group 1: CT; group 2: plain X-rays or combination of X-rays/ultrasound within 3 months after RIRS). Clinically significant RFs (CSRFs) were considered RFs ⩾ 4 mm. One-to-one propensity score matching for age, gender, and stone characteristics was performed. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to evaluate independent predictors of CSRFs.
RESULTS: A total of 5395 patients were included (1748 in group 1; 3647 in group 2). After matching, 608 patients from each group with comparable baseline and stone characteristics were included. CSRFs were diagnosed in 1132 patients in the overall cohort (21.0%). Post-operative CT reported a significantly higher number of patients with RFs ⩾ 4 mm, before (35.7% versus 13.9%, p
METHODS: Urology residents and specialists were invited to test the training model. They were asked to complete a pre-task questionnaire, to perform piecemeal and en bloc resection of 'bladder tumours' within the training model, and to complete a post-task questionnaire afterwards. Their performances were assessed by faculty members of the AUSTEG. For the face validity, a pre-task questionnaire consisting of six statements on TURBT and the training model were set. For the content validity, a post-task questionnaire consisting of 14 items on the details of the training model were set. For the construct validity, a Global Rating Scale was used to assess the participants' performances. The participants were stratified into two groups (junior surgeons and senior surgeons groups) according to their duration of urology training.
RESULTS: For the pre-task questionnaire, a mean score of ≥ 4.0 out of 5.0 was achieved in 5 out of 6 statements. For the post-task questionnaire, a mean score of ≥ 4.5 out of 5.0 was achieved in every item. For the Global Rating Scale, the senior surgeons group had higher scores than the junior surgeons group in 8 out of 11 items as well as the total score.
CONCLUSION: A porcine TURBT training model has been developed, and its face, content and construct validity has been established.
METHODS: Retrospective analysis was performed on the FLEXOR registry, which was created as a TOWER group (Team of Worldwide Endourological Researchers, research wing of the Endourological Society) endeavor. Patients who underwent retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for renal stones from January 2018 to August 2021 were enrolled from 20 centers globally. A total of 6663 patients whose data were available for analysis were divided into Group 1 (Reusable scopes, 4808 patients) versus Group 2 (Disposable scopes, 1855 patients).
RESULTS: The age and gender distribution were similar in both groups. The mean stone size was 11.8 mm and 9.6 mm in Groups 2 and 1, respectively (p 2 cm stones, lower pole stones and of higher Hounsfield unit. Thulium fiber laser (TFL) was used more in Group 2 (p
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the global impact of COVID-19 on urological providers and the provision of urological patient care.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A cross-sectional, web-based survey was conducted from March 30, 2020 to April 7, 2020. A 55-item questionnaire was developed to investigate the impact of COVID-19 on various aspects of urological services. Target respondents were practising urologists, urology trainees, and urology nurses/advanced practice providers.
OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary outcome was the degree of reduction in urological services, which was further stratified by the geographical location, degree of outbreak, and nature and urgency of urological conditions. The secondary outcome was the duration of delay in urological services.
RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 1004 participants responded to our survey, and they were mostly based in Asia, Europe, North America, and South America. Worldwide, 41% of the respondents reported that their hospital staff members had been diagnosed with COVID-19 infection, 27% reported personnel shortage, and 26% had to be deployed to take care of COVID-19 patients. Globally, only 33% of the respondents felt that they were given adequate personal protective equipment, and many providers expressed fear of going to work (47%). It was of concerning that 13% of the respondents were advised not to wear a surgical face mask for the fear of scaring their patients, and 21% of the respondents were advised not to discuss COVID-19 issues or concerns on media. COVID-19 had a global impact on the cut-down of urological services, including outpatient clinic appointments, outpatient investigations and procedures, and urological surgeries. The degree of cut-down of urological services increased with the degree of COVID-19 outbreak. On average, 28% of outpatient clinics, 30% of outpatient investigations and procedures, and 31% of urological surgeries had a delay of >8 wk. Urological services for benign conditions were more affected than those for malignant conditions. Finally, 47% of the respondents believed that the accumulated workload could be dealt with in a timely manner after the COVID-19 outbreak, but 50% thought the postponement of urological services would affect the treatment and survival outcomes of their patients. One of the limitations of this study is that Africa, Australia, and New Zealand were under-represented.
CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 had a profound global impact on urological care and urology providers. The degree of cut-down of urological services increased with the degree of COVID-19 outbreak and was greater for benign than for malignant conditions. One-fourth of urological providers were deployed to assist with COVID-19 care. Many providers reported insufficient personal protective equipment and support from hospital administration.
PATIENT SUMMARY: Coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) has led to significant delay in outpatient care and surgery in urology, particularly in regions with the most COVID-19 cases. A considerable proportion of urology health care professionals have been deployed to assist in COVID-19 care, despite the perception of insufficient training and protective equipment.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data from adults who underwent flexible ureteroscopy in 20 centers worldwide were retrospectively reviewed (January 2018-August 2021). Patients with ureteral stones, concomitant bilateral procedures, and combined procedures were excluded. One-to-one propensity score matching for age, gender, and stone characteristics was performed. Stone-free rate was defined as absence of fragments >2 mm on imaging within 3 months after surgery. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to evaluate independent predictors of being stone-free.
RESULTS: Of 2,075 included patients, holmium:YAG laser with MOSES technology was used in 508 patients and thulium fiber laser in 1,567 patients. After matching, 284 patients from each group with comparable baseline characteristics were included. Pure dusting was applied in 6.0% of cases in holmium:YAG laser with MOSES technology compared with 26% in thulium fiber laser. There was a higher rate of basket extraction in holmium:YAG laser with MOSES technology (89% vs 43%, P < .001). Total operation time and lasing time were similar. Nine patients had sepsis in thulium fiber laser vs none in holmium:YAG laser with MOSES technology (P = .007). Higher stone-free rate was achieved in thulium fiber laser (85% vs 56%, P < .001). At multivariable analysis, the use of thulium fiber laser and ureteral access sheath ≥8F had significantly higher odds of being stone-free. Lasing time, multiple stones, stone diameter, and use of disposable scopes showed significantly lower odds of being stone-free.
CONCLUSIONS: This real-world study favors the use of thulium fiber laser over holmium:YAG laser with MOSES technology in flexible ureteroscopy for renal stones by way of its higher single-stage stone-free rate.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: READT (real-life evaluation of the effect of ADT in prostate cancer patients in Asia) was a multi-center, prospective observational study involving six sites across four Asian populations. We enrolled eligible prostate cancer patients, who opted for ADT alone or in combination without prior neoadjuvant or adjuvant ADT within 12 months. The EuroQoL-5 dimensions, 5 level scale (EQ-5D-5L) utility index scores and visual analog scale (VAS) were evaluated at baseline, month 6 and month 12.
RESULTS: A total of 504 patients were recruited into READT between September 2016 and May 2020 with 52.9% diagnosed with metastatic prostate cancer. The EQ-5D-5L was evaluable in 442/504 (87.7%) of patients. Overall baseline EQ-5D-5L utility index score was 0.924 (interquartile range [IQR] 0.876-1.000). We observed a statistically significant difference in baseline EQ-5D-5L utility index score among different populations with a median EQ-5D-5L utility index score of 1 for Taiwan & Hong Kong, 0.897 for China and 0.838 for Malaysia. Similar trend was observed throughout multiple treatment time-points. Stage IV prostate cancer were significantly associated with a lower baseline EQ-5D-5L utility index score compared to stage I-III prostate cancer, producing a median disutility value of -0.080. Participants had a high median VAS (80, IQR 70-90), indicating good overall health on average during ADT initiation.
CONCLUSIONS: The study highlights the differences in health state utility index scores among various Asian prostate cancer patients receiving ADT at real-world setting. Our findings will be informative and useful in cost-effectiveness evaluation and policy decision making.
METHODS: Data from 20 centers were retrospectively reviewed. Inclusion criteria were adult patients, normal renal anatomy, and LPS. Exclusion criteria were bilateral surgery, concomitant surgery for ureteral stones. SFR was defined as a single residual fragment (RF) ≤ 2 mm and evaluated 3-months after surgery. A multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to assess factors associated with RF. Statistical significance was set at p value
METHODS: Patients were divided into two groups according to the type of laser employed [Holmium:YAG (HL) or Thulium fiber laser (TFL)]. Residual fragments (RF) were defined as > 2 mm. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to evaluate factors associated with RF and RF needing further intervention.
RESULTS: 4208 patients from 20 centers were included. In whole series, age, recurrent stones, stone size, lower pole stones (LPS), and multiple stones were predictors of RF at multivariable analysis and LPS and stone size with RF requiring further treatment. HU and TFL were associated with lesser RF and RF requiring an additional treatment. In HU
PATIENTS AND METHODS: This retrospective FLEXible Ureteroscopy Outcomes Registry (FLEXOR), supported by the Team of Worldwide Endourological Researchers (TOWER), examines adult patients who underwent RIRS. We analysed a subset of asymptomatic patients with renal stones on imaging who were treated with RIRS. Data includes patient characteristics, stone specifications, anaesthesia type, perioperative details, complications, and SFR. A multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to assess factors associated with the SFR.
RESULTS: Among 679 patients with AIRS, 640 met the inclusion criteria. The median age was 55 years, with 33.4% being female. In all, 22.1% had positive urine cultures. The median stone diameter was 12 mm, commonly in lower and interpolar locations. RIRS was preferentially performed under general anaesthesia using a reusable scope in 443 cases. Prophylactic antibiotics were administered to 314 patients. The median operation time was 58 min and the median laser time was 24 min. The SFR was 68.8%. The use of holmium laser (odds ratio [OR] 0.21, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.06-0.63; P
METHOD: The protocol of this review is registered on PROSPERO(CRD42020190882). A comprehensive literature search was performed on Medline, Embase and Cochrane CENTRAL using MeSH terms and keywords for randomised controlled trials and observational studies on the topic. Risks of biases were assessed using the Cochrane RoB tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. For localised RCC, immediate surgery [including partial nephrectomy (PN) and radical nephrectomy (RN)] and delayed surgery [including active surveillance (AS) and delayed intervention (DI)] were compared. For metastatic RCC, upfront versus deferred cytoreductive nephrectomy (CN) were compared.
RESULTS: Eleven studies were included for quantitative analysis. Delayed surgery was significantly associated with worse cancer-specific survival (HR 1.67, 95% CI 1.23-2.27, p
METHODS: Data from 2 multicenter databases, FLEXible ureteroscopy Outcomes Registry (FLEXOR) (unilateral RIRS) and same sitting bilateral-retrograde intrarenal surgery (SSB-RIRS) (bilateral RIRS), were analyzed, considering only patients aged 70+ with preoperative computed tomography. Patients were categorized into Group 1 (bilateral RIRS) and Group 2 (unilateral RIRS). Follow-up included imaging assessments and secondary treatments as needed.
RESULTS: Group 1 included 146 patients, while group 2 had 495. Group 1's patients were slightly older and had a higher prevalence of recurrent stone formation. Group 2 often underwent RIRS for incidental stones. Group 1 had larger and more pelvic stones. Laser lithotripsy and total operation times were significantly longer in Group 1. Group 2 had significantly higher overall stone-free rates, although there were no significant differences in ancillary procedures for residual fragments. Group 1 experienced more pelvicalyceal injuries needing stenting, postoperative fever, and post-op hematuria not requiring transfusion.
CONCLUSION: In conclusion, bilateral RIRS can be carefully considered in elderly patients. Preoperative counseling is essential for both primary and repeat RIRS procedures, and further research is needed to optimize instrument and laser strategies for better outcomes in elderly RIRS patients.
METHODS: Inclusion criteria: age ≥ 18 years, normal renal/calyceal system anatomy, calculi of any size, number, and position.
STUDY PERIOD: January 2018 and August 2021. Stone-free status: absence of fragments > 2 mm, assessed post procedure according to the local protocol (KUB X-Ray and/or ultrasound or non-contrast CT scan).
RESULTS: Twenty centers from fifteen countries enrolled 6669 patients. There were 4407 (66.2%) men. Mean age was 49.3 ± 15.59 years. Pain was the most frequent symptom indication for intervention (62.6%). 679 (10.2%) patients underwent RIRS for an incidental finding of stones. 2732 (41.0%) patients had multiple stones. Mean stone size was 10.04 ± 6.84 mm. A reusable flexible ureteroscope was used in 4803 (72.0%) procedures. A sheath-less RIRS was performed in 454 (6.8%) cases. Holmium:YAG laser was used in 4878 (73.1%) cases. A combination of dusting and fragmentation was the most common lithotripsy mode performed (64.3%). Mean operation time was 62.40 ± 17.76 min. 119 (1.8%) patients had an intraoperative injury of the ureter due to UAS insertion. Mean postoperative stay was 3.62 ± 3.47 days. At least one postoperative complication occurred in 535 (8.0%) patients. Sepsis requiring intensive care admission occurred in 84 (1.3%) patients. Residual fragments were detected in 1445 (21.7%) patients. Among the latter, 744 (51.5%) patients required a further intervention.
CONCLUSION: Our database contributes real-world data to support to a better understanding of modern RIRS practice and outcomes.
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The COVID-19 pandemic has extensively impacted global healthcare systems. We hypothesized that the degree of psychological impact would be higher for surgical providers deployed for COVID-19 work, certain surgical specialties, and for those who knew of someone diagnosed with, or who died, of COVID-19.
METHODS: We conducted a global web-based survey to investigate the psychological impact of COVID-19. The primary outcomes were the depression anxiety stress scale-21 and Impact of Event Scale-Revised scores.
RESULTS: A total of 4283 participants from 101 countries responded. 32.8%, 30.8%, 25.9%, and 24.0% screened positive for depression, anxiety, stress, and PTSD respectively. Respondents who knew someone who died of COVID-19 were more likely to screen positive for depression, anxiety, stress, and PTSD (OR 1.3, 1.6, 1.4, 1.7 respectively, all P < 0.05). Respondents who knew of someone diagnosed with COVID-19 were more likely to screen positive for depression, stress, and PTSD (OR 1.2, 1.2, and 1.3 respectively, all P < 0.05). Surgical specialties that operated in the head and neck region had higher psychological distress among its surgeons. Deployment for COVID- 19-related work was not associated with increased psychological distress.
CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic may have a mental health legacy outlasting its course. The long-term impact of this ongoing traumatic event underscores the importance of longitudinal mental health care for healthcare personnel, with particular attention to those who know of someone diagnosed with, or who died of COVID-19.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients diagnosed with EPN between 2013 and 2020 were retrospectively included. Data from 15 centers (70%) were used to develop the scoring system, and data from 7 centers (30%) were used to validate it. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to identify independent factors related to mortality. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was performed to construct the scoring system and calculate the risk of mortality. A standardized regression coefficient was used to quantify the discriminating power of each factor to convert the individual coefficients into points. The area under the curve was used to quantify the scoring system performance. An 8-point scoring system for the mortality risk was created (range, 0-7).
RESULTS: In total, 570 patients were included (400 in the test group and 170 in the validation group). Independent predictors of mortality in the multivariable logistic regression were included in the scoring system: quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment score ≥2 (2 points), anemia, paranephric gas extension, leukocyte count >22,000/μL, thrombocytopenia, and hyperglycemia (1 point each). The mortality rate was <5% for scores ≤3, 83.3% for scores 6, and 100% for scores 7. The area under the curve was 0.90 (95% confidence interval, 0.84-0.95) for test and 0.91 (95% confidence interval, 0.84-0.97) for the validation group.
CONCLUSIONS: Our score predicts the risk of mortality in patients with EPN at presentation and may help clinicians identify patients at a higher risk of death.