Impact of the first surge of the COVID-19 pandemic on a tertiary referral centre for kidney cancer

Has the COVID-19 pandemic affected ureteral stone management in pregnant women? A retrospective single-center study

INTRODUCTION

This study aimed to evaluate the effect of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) on the patients' referral in the pregnant population and also investigate each treatment approach's advantages and disadvantages for acute renal colic in pregnancy.

METHODS

In this retrospective study, we included all pregnant women with ureteral stones referred to a referral center between January 2019 and March 2021.

RESULTS

Among 53 pregnant women, 18 (33.9%) were on conservative therapy, which passed the stone without any complications. Double J stent or nephrostomy tube insertion was done for 24 patients (45.2%). Seventeen of these patients (70.8%) presented post-surgical complications, including hematuria (29.2%), pyelonephritis (20.8%), and lower urinary tract symptoms (20.8%). Transurethral lithotripsy (TUL) was done in 11 patients (20.7%). Only one of these patients developed hematuria following TUL. Thus, in our population study, double J stent or nephrostomy insertion was associated with a higher chance of postoperative complications than TUL (p-value = 0.001). Thirty-six patients were referred within 13 months before the entry of COVID-19, while 17 were referred during a similar approximate duration after the COVID-19 entry into the country. Only the initial presentation had a significant difference between these two periods (p-value = 0.034).

CONCLUSIONS

When conservative treatment fails, we recommend TUL as the second-line treatment over temporary procedures, such as double J stent or nephrostomy insertion. Of note, in a group of patients with an emergent clinical setting, including active infection, deteriorating renal function, signs of preterm labor, solitary kidney, etc., double J or nephrostomy tube insertion remains the preferred management method for its fast resolution of obstruction and infection. Besides, a decrease in visits with an increase in complicated cases after COVID-19 was observed, maybe due to a delay in referring.

Impact of the Sars-Cov-2 outbreak on the initial clinical presentation of new solid cancer diagnoses: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic might have delayed cancer diagnosis and management. The aim of this systematic review was to compare the initial tumor stage of new cancer diagnoses before and after the pandemic.

METHODS

We systematically reviewed articles that compared the tumor stage of new solid cancer diagnoses before and after the initial pandemic waves. We conducted a random-effects meta-analysis to compare the rate of metastatic tumors and the distribution of stages at diagnosis. Subgroup analyses were performed by primary tumor site and by country.

RESULTS

From 2,013 studies published between January 2020 and April 2022, we included 58 studies with 109,996 patients. The rate of metastatic tumors was higher after the COVID-19 outbreak than before (pooled OR: 1.29 (95% CI, 1.06-1.57), I2: 89% (95% CI, 86-91)). For specific cancers, common ORs reached statistical significance for breast (OR: 1.51 (95% CI 1.07-2.12)) and gynecologic (OR: 1.51 (95% CI 1.04-2.18)) cancers, but not for other cancer types. According to countries, common OR (95% CI) reached statistical significance only for Italy: 1.55 (1.01-2.39) and Spain:1.14 (1.02-1.29). Rates were comparable for stage I-II versus III-IV in studies for which that information was available, and for stages I-II versus stage III in studies that did not include metastatic patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite inter-study heterogeneity, our meta-analysis showed a higher rate of metastatic tumors at diagnosis after the pandemic. The burden of social distancing policies might explain those results, as patients may have delayed seeking care.

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.

Single vs Dual-site service reconfiguration during Covid-19 pandemic - A tertiary care centre experience in hip fractures and a Scoping review

Aims and objectives

The Covid-19 pandemic has had an unprecedented effect on surgical practice and healthcare delivery globally. We compared the impact of the care pathways which segregate Covid-19 Positive and Negative patients into two geographically separate sites, on hip fracture patients in our high-volume trauma center in 3 distinct eras - the pre-pandemic period, against the first Covid-19 wave with dual-site service design, as well as the subsequent surge with single-site service delivery. In addition, we sought to invoke similar experiences of centres worldwide through a scoping literature review on the current evidence on "Dual site" reconfigurations in response to Covid-19 pandemic.

Methods

We prospectively reviewed our hip fracture patients throughout the two peaks of the pandemic, with different service designs for each, and compared the outcomes with a historic service provision. Further, a comprehensive literature search was conducted using several databases for articles discussing Dual-site service redesign.

Results

In our in-house study, there was no statistically significant difference in mortality of hip fracture patients between the 3 periods, as well as their discharge destinations. With dual-site reconfiguration, patients took longer to reach theatre. However, there was much more nosocomial transmission with single-site service, and patients stayed in the hospital longer. 24 articles pertaining to the topic were selected for the scoping review. Most studies favour dual-site service reorganization, and reported beneficial outcomes from the detached care pathways.

Conclusion

It is safe to continue urgent as well as non-emergency surgery during the Covid-19 pandemic in a separate, geographically isolated site.