What is the best way to manage ureteric calculi in the time of COVID‐19? A comparison of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) and ureteroscopy (URS) in an Australian health‐care setting

Abstract

Abstract Objectives To determine the best way to intervene for ureteric stones which still require treatment during the COVID‐19 pandemic, with respect to infection control. In this setting, in which resources are constrained, extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) has prima facie advantages over ureteroscopy (URS). It is also necessary to also consider posttreatment resource consumption in regards to complications and repeat procedures. Subjects and methods The ideal ureteric stone treatment during a pandemic such as COVID‐19 would involve minimum resource consumption and a minimum number of patient attendances. We compared all patients initially treated with SWL to those initially treated with URS for acute ureteral colic within the state of Victoria, Australia in 2017. Results A total of 2724 ureteric stones were analyzed, a cumulative “3‐month exposure and burden on the healthcare system” was calculated for each patient by their initial procedure type. The readmission rate for URS was significantly higher than for SWL, 0.92 readmissions/patient for URS versus 0.54 readmissions/patient for SWL (P < .001). The cumulative hospital stay per patient for these two procedures was 2.35 days for SWL versus 3.21 days for URS (P < .001). The number of procedures per patient was 1.52 for SWL versus 1.89 for URS (P = .0213). Conclusions Patients with ureteric stones treated initially by SWL have shorter length of stay with fewer overall attendances and procedures at 3 months than those treated with URS. During a pandemic such as COVID‐19, SWL may have benefits in preserving hospital resources and limiting opportunity for virus transmission, compared to URS.

Keywords

• extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (SWL)
• laser lithotripsy
• renal colic
• ureteric stones
• urolithiasis