Primary ureteroscopy for diagnosing and treating acute urolithiasis during the COVID-19 pandemic: Quality and cost benefits

IF 0.8 Q4 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY Urological Science Pub Date : 2022-01-01 DOI:10.4103/uros.uros_91_21
Mudassir M. Wani, Iqbal Sheikh, H. Marsh, M. Sheriff, Z. Bhat, John Mullighan
{"title":"Primary ureteroscopy for diagnosing and treating acute urolithiasis during the COVID-19 pandemic: Quality and cost benefits","authors":"Mudassir M. Wani, Iqbal Sheikh, H. Marsh, M. Sheriff, Z. Bhat, John Mullighan","doi":"10.4103/uros.uros_91_21","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: The purpose of this study was to investigate the management of acute urolithiasis during index admission by primary ureteroscopy (P-URS) during coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. With the rise in prevalence of urolithiasis, the focus has shifted to manage patients presenting with acute ureteric colic during their first admission rather than using temporary measures such as emergency stenting (ES) or nephrostomies which are followed by deferred ureteroscopic procedures Deferred Ureteroscopy (D-URS). We compared the results of ES with P-URS procedures in terms of quality and cost benefits during COVID-19 pandemic. Materials and Methods: Data were collected prospectively from April 2020 to March 2021 for all emergency urolithiasis procedures performed including ES and P-URS. The quality assessment was based in relation to patient factors including the number of procedures per patient, number of days spent at hospital, number of days off work, and expertise of person operating. Cost analysis included theater expenses, hospital stay charges, and loss of working days. Results: This study revealed that the average stay of patients on index admission who had an ES was 1.35 days compared to 1.78 days in patients who underwent P-URS. Patients who had ES had to undergo D-URS and spent another average of 1.5 days in the hospital. Overall, additional expenditure in patients who did not undergo primary ureterorenoscopy was on an average in the range of £1800 (excluding loss of work for patients, who needed to return for multiple procedures). Conclusion: We conclude that the approach of P-URS and management of stones in index admission is very effective in both improving quality of patients (during the COVID-19 pandemic) and bringing down cost expenditure effectively.","PeriodicalId":23449,"journal":{"name":"Urological Science","volume":"33 1","pages":"30 - 34"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Urological Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/uros.uros_91_21","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to investigate the management of acute urolithiasis during index admission by primary ureteroscopy (P-URS) during coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. With the rise in prevalence of urolithiasis, the focus has shifted to manage patients presenting with acute ureteric colic during their first admission rather than using temporary measures such as emergency stenting (ES) or nephrostomies which are followed by deferred ureteroscopic procedures Deferred Ureteroscopy (D-URS). We compared the results of ES with P-URS procedures in terms of quality and cost benefits during COVID-19 pandemic. Materials and Methods: Data were collected prospectively from April 2020 to March 2021 for all emergency urolithiasis procedures performed including ES and P-URS. The quality assessment was based in relation to patient factors including the number of procedures per patient, number of days spent at hospital, number of days off work, and expertise of person operating. Cost analysis included theater expenses, hospital stay charges, and loss of working days. Results: This study revealed that the average stay of patients on index admission who had an ES was 1.35 days compared to 1.78 days in patients who underwent P-URS. Patients who had ES had to undergo D-URS and spent another average of 1.5 days in the hospital. Overall, additional expenditure in patients who did not undergo primary ureterorenoscopy was on an average in the range of £1800 (excluding loss of work for patients, who needed to return for multiple procedures). Conclusion: We conclude that the approach of P-URS and management of stones in index admission is very effective in both improving quality of patients (during the COVID-19 pandemic) and bringing down cost expenditure effectively.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在COVID-19大流行期间诊断和治疗急性尿石症的初级输尿管镜检查:质量和成本效益
目的:本研究旨在研究2019冠状病毒病(新冠肺炎)大流行期间,通过初级输尿管镜(P-URS)进行指数入院期间急性尿石症的治疗。随着尿石症患病率的上升,重点已转移到治疗首次入院时出现急性输尿管绞痛的患者,而不是使用临时措施,如紧急支架植入术(ES)或肾造口术,然后进行延期输尿管镜检查延期输尿管镜检(D-URS)。在新冠肺炎大流行期间,我们比较了ES和P-URS程序在质量和成本效益方面的结果。材料和方法:从2020年4月至2021年3月前瞻性收集所有紧急尿石症手术的数据,包括ES和P-URS。质量评估基于患者因素,包括每位患者的手术次数、住院天数、休息天数和手术人员的专业知识。成本分析包括剧院费用、住院费和工作日损失。结果:本研究显示,接受ES的指数入院患者的平均住院时间为1.35天,而接受P-URS的患者为1.78天。患有ES的患者必须接受D-URS,并在医院平均再呆1.5天。总体而言,未接受初级输尿管肾镜检查的患者的额外支出平均在1800英镑左右(不包括需要返回进行多次手术的患者的工作损失)。结论:在新冠肺炎大流行期间,P-URS方法和结石指数入院管理在提高患者质量和有效降低成本支出方面非常有效。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Urological Science
Urological Science UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY-
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
26
审稿时长
6 weeks
期刊最新文献
Clinical guidelines of patient-centered bladder management of neurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction due to chronic spinal cord injury – Part 3: Surgical treatment in chronic spinal cord injured patients Collecting duct carcinoma of the kidney: Clinicopathological profile and outcomes “Rule of Five” in Ureteral Dilatation and its Role in Ureteral Access Sheath Placement during Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery Testicular tumor patients presented with scrotal violation-nonstandard surgical approach and its survival rate Level of scientific evidence underlying recommendations arising from the functional urology guidelines
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1