Management of Clinically Insignificant Residual Fragments following Shock Wave Lithotripsy

Clinically insignificant residual fragments (CIRFs) are small fragments (less than 5 mm) that are present in upper urinary tract at the time of regular post-SWL followup. The term is controversial because they may remain silent and asymptomatic or become a risk factor for stone growth and recurrence, leading to symptomatic events, and need further urologic treatment. Although a stone-free state is the desired outcome of surgical treatment of urolithiasis, the authors believe that the presence of noninfected, nonobstructive, asymptomatic residual fragments can be managed metabolically in order to prevent stone growth and recurrence. Further urologic intervention is warranted if clinical indications for stone removal are present

Urological emergency activities during COVID-19 pandemic: Our experience

Background: The Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) is causing a significant health emergency which is overturning dramatically routine activities in hospitals. The outbreak is generating the need to provide assistance to infected patients and in parallel to treat all nondeferrable oncological and urgent benign diseases. A panel of Italian urologists agreed on possible strategies for the reorganization of urological routine practices and on a set of recommendations that should facilitate a further planning of both inpatient visits and surgical activities during the COVID- 19 pandemic. According to this only urgent benign and nondeferrable oncological activities have been kept. Materials and methods: We have considered urgent outpatient visits requested by Emergency Department (ED) or by General Practitioner (GP) and emergency surgical procedures performed in our Urology Unit from March 9th to April 14th 2020, during COVID-19 pandemic. These figures have been compared to those observed last year from March 9th to April 14th 2019. Results: Our data show that urgent care visits decreased during COCID-19 pandemic (from 293 to 179). Urgent care visits of patients who accessed directly to the ED decreased (from 219 to 107) whereas the number of urgent care visits referred by GP remained unchanged (74 vs 72). Consequently, the rate of visits from ED decreased from 75% to 60% and the rate of visit requested by GP increased from 25% to 40% (p = 0.001). Particularly, the rate of visits for renal colic, LUTS and other not precisely defined disorders from ED decreased and the corresponding rates of visits of patients referred by GPs increased significantly (p = 0.0001, p = 0.0180 and p = 0.0185, respectively). The rate of visits for acute urinary retention, hematuria, sepsis, acute scrotum, cystitis, prostatitis and genito-urinary trauma from ED and GP remained unchanged. Finally, urgency endourology and surgical activities have been stable in relation to the same period last year. Conclusions: Urological emergency activities during COVID- 19 pandemic are more appropriate since urgent outpatients' visits required by ED are decreased and emergency surgical and endourological procedures are stable

Urolithiasis in renal transplantation: Diagnosis and management

Obiectives: To report our experience of diagnosis and multimodal management of urolithiasis in renal transplantation. Patients and Methods: From January 1995 to December 2012, 953 patients underwent renal transplantation in the Kidney Transplant Unit of Treviso General Hospital. Ten (10%) of them developed urinary calculi and were referred at our institution. Their mode of presentation, investigation and treatment were recorded. Results: Seven had renal and 3 ureteral calculi. Urolithiasis was incidentally discovered on routine ultrasound in 6 patients, 1 presented with oliguria, 1 with anuria and acute renal failure and in 2 urolithiasis was found at removal of the ureteral stent. Nephrostomy tube was placed in 5 patients. Hypercalcemia with hyperparathyroidism (HPT) was present in 5 patients and hyperuricemia in 3. Two patients were primary treated by shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) and one of them was stone-free after two sessions. Two patients, one with multiple pielocaliceal calculi and the other with staghorn calculus in the lower calyx, were treated with percutaneous nephrolitothotomy (PCNL). Three patients were treated by ureteroscopy (URS) and in one of them two treatments were carried out. One patient had calculus impacted in the uretero-vesical anastomosis and surgical ureterolithotomy with re-do ureterocystoneostomy was performed after failure of URS. Two patients with calculi discovered at removal of the ureteral stent were treated by URS. Conclusions: The incidence of urolithiasis in renal transplantation is uncommon. In the most of patients the condition occurs without pain. Metabolic anomalies and medical treatment after renal transplantation may cause stone formation. Advancements in endourology and interventional radiology have influenced the management of urolithiasis that can be actually treated with a minimal incidence of risk for the renal allograft

Metabolic evaluation in patients with infected nephrolithiasis: Is it necessary?

Fifty-four patients with infected renal lithiasis underwent complete metabolic evaluation searching for underlying factors contributing to stone formation including urine analysis and culture. Metabolic abnormalities were significantly more present in patients with mixed infected stones (struvite+/-apatite and calcium oxalate) than in patients with pure infected stones (struvite+/-carbonate apatite): hypercalciuria in 40%, hyperoxaluria in 34% and hyperuricosuria in 28% (p < 0.05). Urinary excretion of citrate was low in both groups without statistically significant difference (238+/-117 mg/24 h vs 214+/-104 mg/24/h, t = 0.72, p = 0.5). The few metabolic abnormalities present in patients with pure infected stones should suggest that urinary tract infection could change the urine chemistry in a lithogenic direction and be only cause of stone formation