Double J Stents and Reno–Ureteral Lithiasis during COVID-19: History
View Latest Version
Please note this is an old version of this entry, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Contributor:
Adrian Militaru
,
Catalin Andrei Bulai
,
Cosmin Ene
,
Razvan Ionut Popescu
,
Cosmin Cozma
,
Cristian Mares
,
Stefan Balacescu
,
Cristian Moldoveanu
,
Dragos Adrian Georgescu
,
Petrisor Aurelian Geavlete
,
Bogdan Florin Geavlete

Urolithiasis, or kidney stone disease, is a common urological condition that often necessitates emergency medical attention. During the COVID-19 epidemic, significant shifts occurred in the available options for treating urinary stones. Obstructed reno–ureteral stones or infected ones should be treated as an emergency by decompression. Ureteral stents were a safe, efficient, and cost-effective procedure for urolithiasis during the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, they reduce the risk of infection and hospital visits. Therefore, it was a valuable option in urolithiasis treatment during the pandemic.

  • urolithiasis
  • double J stent
  • ureteral obstruction
  • COVID-19

1. The Use of Double J Stents in Urology before the Pandemic

Zimskind et al. described the use of ureteral catheters or double J stents for the first time in 1967 [1]. The devices are small, flexible tubes made of biocompatible materials, commonly silicone and polyurethane. They are inserted into the ureter to maintain its patency and allow urine to pass from the kidney to the bladder [2]. These stents range from 25 to 30 cm long and are inserted using a cystoscope on a metal guide under fluoroscopic guidance [3].
Since their discovery, they have been increasingly utilized in urological endoscopic surgery, becoming an essential part of daily practice [4]. Every year in the United States, approximately 92,000 stents are used for the treatment of obstructive ureteral pathology and reno–ureteral lithiasis. Stents are one of the most significant tools in a urologist’s arsenal [5][6].
It is estimated that more than 80% of ureteral stents present adverse reactions, resulting in severe pain and negatively affecting the patient’s quality of life. Often, this requires surgical intervention and ultimately increases healthcare costs [7][8]. Therefore, manufacturers have focused on developing biodegradable ureteral stents that significantly reduce the unpleasant side effects and complications linked with double j stents. The stents are made from biocompatible materials that reduce the risk of infection and other complications that can arise. In addition, they provide a much safer experience for the patient [9]. Until we benefit from their potential advantages, well-documented studies are still needed. However, this seems to be the path to follow in research on ureteral stents [10].
Ureteral stents were estimated to cost USD 359.9 million in 2018 and are predicted to reach USD 564.4 million in 2026. In addition to the direct costs of double J stents, some indirect costs are described. These costs include those linked to decreased quality of life, the drugs administered during stenting, the decrease in productivity at work, or even medical leaves [11][12][13]. In recent studies, silicone stents have been shown to be easier to tolerate in terms of stent-related symptoms [14][15][16].
In lithiasis pathology of the upper urinary system, double J stents are mainly used for drainage in case of ureteral obstruction, after ureteroscopy, or before extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) [17]. Upper urinary drainage is mandatory in cases of infected hydronephrosis or sepsis but not necessary in all cases of ureteral obstruction. According to the guidelines of the European Association of Urology (EAU), double J stents have similar effectiveness to percutaneous nephrostomy in decompressing the urinary tract and in terms of recovery after sepsis [18][19][20]. Ureteral stents are mainly used (87.7%) to the detriment of percutaneous nephrostomy, according to a study conducted in the United States of America by Sammon et al. [21]. After the ureteroscopic treatment of uncomplicated reno–ureteral lithiasis, the EAU guide and that of the American Urological Association (AUA) state that the insertion of a urethral stent can be omitted [17][18][22], thus reducing urinary tract symptoms associated with stenting and reducing operating costs and time [23].
Although these tools are widely used, they also have disadvantages that reduce the quality of life [24]. Though many manufacturing techniques and materials have been evaluated, an ideal ureteral stent that provides optimal urinary drainage and is easy to mount, tolerable, and durable remains elusive [25][26][27][28]. They also have a whole series of complications, such as migration, obstruction, dysuria, lumbar pain, hematuria, urinary tract infection, encrustation, calcification, and even fragmentation [29][30]. Additional studies are needed to assess the need for perioperative stenting. Therefore, without clear indications, it remains up to each practitioner to assess the necessity of inserting a ureteral stent before or after an intervention; this is conducted by balancing benefits and complications.

2. The European Association of Urology Guidelines Office Rapid Reaction Group

Health systems worldwide faced an unprecedented situation because of the COVID-19 pandemic. With the rapid increase in COVID cases, the situation became more and more challenging to manage, even more so for surgical doctors. During this period, several changes were implemented in urolithiasis management. The EAU also convened a large group of experts to draw up suggestions that could help both patients and urologists; this was conducted to minimize impact and risk.
These guidelines focused on the urgent need to prioritize both treatments and surgeries based on the risk/benefit ratio. They also recommended using telemedicine where possible and ensuring the balance between the maximum use of resources and the safety of both patients and healthcare workers. Color codes were used according to risk stratification. Depending on their severity, these were classified as low priority, which could be postponed for up to 6 months. They were also classified into intermediate priority, high priority, and emergency, which cannot be postponed for more than 24 h. In times of pandemic, it is recommended to implement standardized surgical techniques to cut down on operating room time and postoperative complications. For those reasons, all surgical procedures should be performed by qualified surgeons who have completed the learning curve. Implementing updated technology and conducting specific research on evolving technologies should be delayed until a pandemic emergency passes [31][32].

3. Stone-Related Emergencies in the Event of the Pandemic

Most studies show a decrease in urological emergencies referred to ERs for consultation and specialized treatment; this seems to be due to restrictions imposed during the lockdown period and fear of contagion. As a result, there was an increase in the number of patients with more severe conditions who needed hospital admission and specialized care. Healthcare facilities had to adapt quickly to the changing situation. They put protocols in place to ensure patient safety. Novara et al., in a study carried out in Italy, the first European country severely hit by the COVID pandemic, showed that the number of urological emergencies addressed to ED in one week of 2020 decreased by 55% compared to the same period in 2019. At the same time, he observed an increase in the number of endoscopic interventions (JJ stent insertion or ureteroscopy) for lithiasis pathology in 2020 compared to 2019 due to the desire to treat symptoms and avoid urosepsis. In this way, he claims to have reduced the number of hospitalizations and implicitly reduced the risk of contagion [33].
A multicenter analysis also carried out in Italy by Antonucci et al., shows a reduction in the number of hospitalizations for renal colic by 48.8% in the period March–April 2020 compared to the same period of 2019, with differences varying between 30 and 69.3% depending on the center [34].
A study carried out in Poland by Kaczmarek also showed a decrease in the hospitalization rate in the Urology department in the October–December period of 2020 compared to the same period of 2019. The number of hospitalizations decreased by 35.9% in comparison to the first peak of the pandemic in Poland and by 56.41% compared to the second peak [35].
Steinberg and colleagues also saw a 38% and 44% decrease in ED visits for stone illness at their private academic and county hospitals in Dallas, USA, respectively [36].

4. The Use of Double J Stents in Urological Emergencies during the Pandemic

Considering the limited availability of anesthesiologists and ventilators during the COVID-19 pandemic, it is preferable to perform procedures under local anesthesia, even in the management of urgent urological conditions. For instance, it promotes the use of ureteral stents in upper urinary tract obstruction treatment since they simplify at-home care. Whenever possible, the cause of the obstruction should be addressed according to the resources readily available in the area. However, percutaneous nephrostomy or ureteral stenting under local anesthesia is advised to drain the upper urinary tract without anesthesiology assistance [37].
The COVID-19 practice pattern for urolithiasis has significantly changed. Based on the EULIS Collaborative Research Group, following the COVID-19 pandemic, urolithiasis practice patterns were evaluated through a large survey involving sixty physicians whose primary area of expertise is urinary stones. According to the poll, 49% of specialists reported that their regular therapeutic practices had changed by more than 90%. During the crisis, 72.3% used telemedicine. A total of 89.4% of respondents reported that they were more likely to plan interim collection system draining followed by an elective intervention for COVID-19 emergency patients. However, 10.6% of them continued to undergo final stone surgery treatment. Among the respondents, their elective surgical treatment approach changed as follows: 55.3% at a rate of 90–100% and 39.8% at a rate of 75–89% after COVID-19. Even so, 6.4% of them remained the same as they had been before the outbreak [32].
It took roughly 21 days for various hospitals to implement COVID-19 adjustments and interventions for kidney stones. While the rate of definitive treatments like ureteroscopy (URS), retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS), and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) decreased from 60.8 to 19%, the rate of conservative approaches, such as nephrostomy tube (NPT) insertion, double JJ stent placement, or extraction, increased significantly from 38.2 to 81% [32].
There is still a question about the definitive treatment for the COVID-19 pandemic. Some urologists chose active stone treatment over interim drainage, except when an infection was present or staged treatment was anticipated; this was to minimize ED visits. Others would rather wait until the COVID-19 pandemic was over before beginning operations to treat urinary stones, merely performing temporary drainage when necessary [34][38]. When the obstruction is accompanied by infection and fever, we should use an indwelling JJ stent or NPT to temporarily drain the collecting system before beginning, if possible, definitive treatment [39][40].
How to treat patients who already had ureteral stents for severe urolithiasis prior to the COVID-19 epidemic is another issue of concern. The infection relayed to the urinary stent can cause serious morbidity, including acute pyelonephritis, bacteremia, urosepsis, and even death. This subset of patients should be given significant consideration to prevent a lengthy wait. Bearing in mind that most ureteral stents can be left in place for up to 6–12 months, the length of time the stent will be in place should be a consideration in the prioritization process. Even though there is currently insufficient evidence to support antibiotic prophylaxis for patients with indwelling stents, considering at least some pulse antibiotic therapy to lower the risk of urosepsis and the ensuing need for a mechanical ventilator could be worthwhile given the likely delays in surgery [41]. Additionally, endourologists must be ready to handle more challenging situations for patients whose surgical procedures are delayed due to lower priority. Waiting lists should also increase. To check on the status of their stones, these patients should be regularly followed up with phone calls [39].
Decompression is recommended for obstructed or infected renal and ureteral stones. There is an agreement, however, that non-obstructed kidney stone treatment can be postponed for several months. Still, it is crucial to remember that patients with symptomatic ureteral/renal stones and those with stents should be given priority care [31][42][43].
For patients with proven or suspected COVID-19, Proietii et al. recommend urgent endourological stone surgery must be performed differently, and these patients must be handled in a special operating theater with a negative pressure environment. To shorten the surgical time, ureteral stent positioning or percutaneous NPT should be chosen over URS and stone fragmentation. Spinal anesthesia should be used to prevent ventilation and aerosol production [39].
Carneiro et al. [44] recommended that COVID-19-negative patients needing urgent intervention for ureteric stones undergo definitive lithotripsy whenever possible and well tolerated, with the postoperative placement of a stent on a string, instead of only drainage, in contrast to the general trends of delaying definitive treatment during the pandemic. They claimed that this approach would result in effective treatment and fewer hospital visits throughout the pandemic.
A variety of procedures and strategies were suggested to lower the likelihood of hospital admissions during the epidemic. During the pandemic surge, several triage algorithms recommended delaying the final treatment of non-urgent nephrolithiasis for longer than 12 weeks. Some examples included patients needing PCNLs, those with stents or NPT, and those with asymptomatic stones [37][39][40][42]. Replacement of ureteral stents and NPT was delayed for up to 6 months [37]. Additionally, it was advised to postpone treatments in patients with indwelling stents because research shows that most stents may be successfully removed with outpatient surgery after being kept in place for up to 6–12 months [45]. However, one should be mindful of the hazards involved in NPT or indwelling stents for long periods. Prior to COVID-19, prospective research found that the length of time an indwelling stent was left in place was a major risk factor for post-URS sepsis [46]. Based on these results, the authors suggested that stent insertion be approached cautiously and that, if necessary, definitive URS be carried out within a month.
The possibility of skipping post-procedure stent implantation was also investigated during the pandemic while considering the risk of long-indwelling ureteral stents. According to Kachroo et al. [47], their rate of stent omission increased from 12% to 66% over the COVID-19 era. Likely due to COVID-19, their frequency of abandoning stents with strings increased from 7% to 16%. Interestingly, the authors’ stent policy adjustments did not cause any issues that necessitated ED visits. These findings support the recommendation to keep the stent string because it would enable the patient to remove the stent without a doctor’s visit, saving time and money. The use of a silicone stent rather than a polyurethane stent to lower the danger of encrustation is one of the other ways investigated to lessen concerns regarding the long-term installation of indwelling ureteral stents [46].

This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/life13112113

References

  1. Zimskind, P.D.; Fetter, T.R.; Wilkerson, J.L. Clinical use of long term indwelling silicone rubber ureteral splints inserted cystoscopically. J. Urol. 1967, 97, 840–844.
  2. Hyde, J. Design and Manufacture of a Biodegradable Ureteral Stent. Master’s Thesis, Clemson University, Clemson, SC, USA, 2016. Available online: https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/all_theses/2355 (accessed on 31 August 2023).
  3. Poulard, C.; Dessombz, A.; Daudon, M.; Bazin, D.; Chim, C.R. Duration of JJ stent in situ is critical: An ultrastructural and mechanical investigation. Comptes Rendus Chim. 2016, 19, 1597–1604.
  4. Ray, R.P.; Mahapatra, R.S.; Mondal, P.P.; Pal, D.K. Long-term complications of JJ stent and its management: A 5 years review. Urol. Ann. 2015, 7, 41–45.
  5. Donahue, R.P.; Stamm, A.W.; Gibbons, R.P.; Porter, C.R.; Kobashi, K.C.; Corman, J.M.; Lee, U.J. Evolution of the Ureteral Stent: The Pivotal Role of the Gibbons Ureteral Catheter. Urology 2018, 115, 3–7.
  6. Dulcera Market Analysis. Ureteral Stent—Market Analysis. 2011. Available online: https://www.dolcera.com/wiki/index.php?title=Ureteral%20Stent%20-%20Market%20Analysis&action=pdfbook&format=single (accessed on 2 September 2023).
  7. De Grazia, A.; Somani, B.K.; Soria, F.; Carugo, D.; Mosayyebi, A. Latest advancements in ureteral stent technology. Transl. Androl. Urol. 2019, 8 (Suppl. S4), S436–S441.
  8. Harber, M. Practical Nephrology; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2014; pp. 439–452.
  9. Barros, A.A.; Oliveira, C.; Ribeiro, A.J.; Autorino, R.; Reis, R.L.; Duarte, A.R.C.; Lima, E. In vivo assessment of a novel biodegradable ureteral stent. World J. Urol. 2018, 36, 277–283.
  10. de la Cruz, J.E.; Soto, M.; Martínez-Plá, L.; Galán-Llopis, J.A.; Sánchez-Margallo, F.M.; Soria, F. Biodegradable ureteral stents: In vitro assessment of the degradation rates of braided synthetic polymers and copolymers. Am. J. Clin. Exp. Urol. 2022, 10, 1–12.
  11. Domingues, B.; Pacheco, M.; de la Cruz, J.E.; Carmagnola, I.; Teixeira-Santos, R.; Laurenti, M.; Can, F.; Bohinc, K.; Moutinho, F.; Silva, J.M.; et al. Future Directions for Ureteral Stent Technology: From Bench to the Market. Adv. Therap. 2022, 5, 2100158.
  12. Sali, G.M.; Joshi, H.B. Ureteric stents: Overview of current clinical applications and economic implications. Int. J. Urol. 2020, 27, 7–15.
  13. Shah. Global Ureteral Stents Market to Surpass US$ 564.4 Million by 2026. Available online: https://www.bloomberg.com/press-releases/2019-07-10/global-ureteral-stents-market-to-surpass-us-564-4-million-by-2026 (accessed on 20 August 2023).
  14. Wiseman, O.; Ventimiglia, E.; Doizi, S.; Kleinclauss, F.; Letendre, J.; Cloutier, J.; Traxer, O. Effects of silicone hydrocoated double loop ureteral stent on symptoms and quality of life in patients undergoing flexible ureteroscopy for kidney stone: A randomized multicenter clinical study. J. Urol. 2020, 204, 769–777.
  15. Gadzhiev, N.; Gorelov, D.; Malkhasyan, V.; Akopyan, G.; Harchelava, R.; Mazurenko, D.; Kosmala, C.; Okhunov, Z.; Petrov, S. Comparison of silicone versus polyurethane ureteral stents: A prospective controlled study. BMC Urol. 2020, 20, 10.
  16. Boeykens, M.; Keller, E.X.; Bosio, A.; Wiseman, O.J.; Contreras, P.; Ventimiglia, E.; Talso, M.; Pietropaolo, A.; Tailly, T.; De Coninck, V. Impact of Ureteral Stent Material on Stent-related Symptoms: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Eur. Urol. Open Sci. 2022, 45, 108–117.
  17. Beysens, M.; Tailly, T.O. Ureteral stents in urolithiasis. Asian J. Urol. 2018, 5, 274–286.
  18. EAU Guidelines. Edn. Presented at the EAU Annual Congress Milan; EAU Guidelines Office: Arnhem, The Netherlands, 2023; ISBN 978-94-92671-19-6.
  19. Pearle, M.S.; Pierce, H.L.; Miller, G.L.; Summa, J.A.; Mutz, J.M.; Petty, B.A.; Roehrborn, C.G.; Kryger, J.V.; Nakada, S.Y. Optimal method of urgent decompression of the collecting system for obstruction and infection due to ureteral calculi. J. Urol. 1998, 160, 1260–1264.
  20. Mokhmalji, H.; Braun, P.M.; Martinez Portillo, F.J.; Siegsmund, M.; Alken, P.; Köhrmann, K.U. Percutaneous nephrostomy versus ureteral stents for diversion of hydronephrosis caused by stones: A prospective, randomized clinical trial. J. Urol. 2001, 165, 1088–1092.
  21. Sammon, J.D.; Ghani, K.R.; Karakiewicz, P.I.; Bhojani, N.; Ravi, P.; Sun, M.; Sukumar, S.; Trinh, V.Q.; Kowalczyk, K.J.; Kim, S.P.; et al. Temporal Trends, Practice Patterns, and Treatment Outcomes for Infected Upper Urinary Tract Stones in the United States. Eur. Urol. 2013, 64, 85–92.
  22. Assimos, D.; Krambeck, A.; Miller, N.L.; Monga, M.; Murad, M.H.; Nelson, C.P.; Pace, K.T.; Pais, V.M.; Pearle, M.S.; Preminger, G.M.; et al. Surgical management of stones: American Urological Association/Endourological Society Guideline, PART I. J. Urol. 2016, 196, 1153–1160.
  23. Wang, H.; Man, L.; Li, G.; Huang, G.; Liu, N.; Wang, J. Meta-analysis of stenting versus non-stenting for the treatment of ureteral stones. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0167670.
  24. Scarneciu, I.; Lupu, S.; Pricop, C.; Scarneciu, C. Morbidity and impact on quality of life in patients with indwelling ureteral stents: A 10-year clinical experience. Pak. J. Med. Sci. 2015, 31, 522–526.
  25. Miyaoka, R.; Monga, M. Ureteral stent discomfort: Etiology and management. Indian J. Urol. 2009, 25, 455–460.
  26. Al-Aown, A.; Kyriazis, I.; Kallidonis, P.; Kraniotis, P.; Rigopoulos, C.; Karnabatidis, D.; Petsas, T.; Liatsikos, E. Ureteral Stents: New Ideas, New Designs. Ther. Adv. Urol. 2010, 2, 85–92.
  27. Vander Brink Brian, A. Encrusted Urinary Drains: Evaluation and Endourologic Management. In Smith’s Textbook of Endourology, 2nd ed.; Smith, A.D., Gopal, B., Demetrius, B., Ralph, C., Steven, D., Gerald, J., Eds.; PMPH-USA: Hamilton, OR, USA, 2007; pp. 486–488.
  28. Mitty, H.A. Stenting of the ureter. In Clinical Urography, 2nd ed.; Pollack, H.M., McClennan, B.L., Eds.; Saunders: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2000; pp. 3186–3205.
  29. Geavlete, P.; Georgescu, D.; Mulțescu, R.; Stanescu, F.; Cozma, C.; Geavlete, B. Ureteral stent complications—Experience on 50,000 procedures. J. Med. Life 2021, 14, 769–775.
  30. Bulai Catalin, P.; Geavlete, D.; Georgescu, C.; Ene, A.; Militaru, A.; Punga, B. Geavlete. Bilateral spontaneous ureteral stent fragmentation: A case report and literature review. Rom. J. Urol. 2021, 20, 39–42.
  31. Ribal, M.J.; Cornford, P.; Briganti, A.; Knoll, T.; Gravas, S.; Babjuk, M.; Harding, C.; Breda, A.; Bex, A.; GORRG Group; et al. European Association of Urology Guidelines Office Rapid Reaction Group: An Organisation-wide Collaborative Effort to Adapt the European Association of Urology Guidelines Recommendations to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Era. Eur. Urol. 2020, 78, 21–28.
  32. Tefik, T.; Guven, S.; Villa, L.; Gokce, M.I.; Kallidonis, P.; Petkova, K.; Kiremit, M.C.; Sonmez, M.G.; de Lorenzis, E.; Eryildirim, B.; et al. Urolithiasis Practice Patterns Following the COVID-19 Pandemic: Overview from the EULIS Collaborative Research Working Group. Eur. Urol. 2020, 78, e21–e24.
  33. Novara, G.; Bartoletti, R.; Crestani, A.; De Nunzio, C.; Durante, J.; Gregori, A.; Liguori, G.; Pavan, N.; Trombetta, C.; Simonato, A.; et al. Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on urological practice in emergency departments in Italy. BJU Int. 2020, 126, 245–247.
  34. Antonucci, M.; Recupero, S.M.; Marzio, V.; De Dominicis, M.; Pinto, F.; Foschi, N.; Di Gianfrancesco, L.; Bassi, P.; Ragonese, M. The impact of COVID-19 outbreak on urolithiasis emergency department admissions, hospitalizations and clinical management in central Italy: A multicentric analysis. Actas Urol. Esp. (Engl. Ed.) 2020, 44, 611–616.
  35. Kaczmarek, K.; Kalembkiewicz, J.; Jankowska, M.; Kalembkiewicz, K.; Narożnicki, J.; Lemiński, A.; Słojewski, M. Did the COVID-19 Pandemic Restrict Access to Emergency Urological Services: Assessment of Reorganisation Effectiveness for Hospital Treatment. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 3735.
  36. Steinberg, R.L.; Johnson, B.A.; Antonelli, J.; Pearle, M.S. Urolithiasis in the COVID Era: An Opportunity to Reassess Management Strategies. Eur. Urol. 2020, 78, 777–778.
  37. Ficarra, V.; Novara, G.; Abrate, A.; Bartoletti, R.; Crestani, A.; De Nunzio, C.; Giannarini, G.; Gregori, A.; Liguori, G.; Mirone, V.; et al. Urology practice during the COVID-19 pandemic. Minerva Urol. Nefrol. 2020, 72, 369–375.
  38. Abdel Raheem, A.; Alowidah, I.; Soliman, M.; Haresy, M.; Almozeni, A.; Althagafi, S.; Almousa, M.; Alturki, M. Urolithiasis treatment options during COVID-19 pandemic: Review of current recommendations and triage systems. Afr. J. Urol. 2020, 26, 75.
  39. Proietti, S.; Gaboardi, F.; Giusti, G. Endourological Stone Management in the Era of the COVID-19. Eur. Urol. 2020, 78, 131–133.
  40. Metzler, I.S.; Sorensen, M.D.; Sweet, R.M.; Harper, J.D. Stone Care Triage During COVID-19 at the University of Washington. J. Endourol. 2020, 34, 539–540.
  41. Fukushima, H.; Kobayashi, M.; Kawano, K.; Morimoto, S. Performance of Quick Sequential (Sepsis Related) and Sequential (Sepsis Related) Organ Failure Assessment to Predict Mortality in Patients with Acute Pyelonephritis Associated with Upper Urinary Tract Calculi. J. Urol. 2018, 199, 1526–1533.
  42. Goldman, H.B.; Haber, G.P. Recommendations for Tiered Stratification of Urological Surgery Urgency in the COVID-19 Era. J. Urol. 2020, 204, 11–13.
  43. Heldwein, F.L.; Loeb, S.; Wroclawski, M.L.; Sridhar, A.N.; Carneiro, A.; Lima, F.S.; Teoh, J.Y. A Systematic Review on Guidelines and Recommendations for Urology Standard of Care During the COVID-19 Pandemic. Eur. Urol. Focus 2020, 6, 1070–1085.
  44. Carneiro, A.; Wroclawski, M.L.; Nahar, B.; Soares, A.; Cardoso, A.P.; Kim, N.J.; Carvalho, F.T. Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on the Urologist’s clinical practice in Brazil: A management guideline proposal for low- and middle-income countries during the crisis period. Int. Braz. J. Urol. 2020, 46, 501–510.
  45. Stensland, K.D.; Morgan, T.M.; Moinzadeh, A.; Lee, C.T.; Briganti, A.; Catto, J.W.F.; Canes, D. Considerations in the Triage of Urologic Surgeries During the COVID-19 Pandemic. Eur. Urol. 2020, 77, 663–666.
  46. Nevo, A.; Mano, R.; Baniel, J.; Lifshitz, D.A. Ureteric stent dwelling time: A risk factor for post-ureteroscopy sepsis. BJU Int. 2017, 120, 117–122.
  47. Kachroo, N.; Wright, H.C.; Sivalingam, S. A tale of two eras: The effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on stone disease presentations. Urology 2020, 144, 270–272.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
This entry is offline, you can click here to edit this entry!
Video Production Service
Feedback