The impact of warm ischemia time (WIT) on renal functional recovery remains controversial. We examined the length of WIT >30 min. on the long-term renal function following on-clamp partial nephrectomy (PN). Data from 23 centers for patients undergoing on-clamp PN between 2000 and 2018 were analyzed. We included patients with two kidneys, single tumor, cT1, minimum 1-year followup, and preoperative eGFR ≥60 ml/min/1.73m2. Patients were divided into two groups according to WIT length: group Ⅰ "WIT ≤30 min." and group Ⅱ "WIT >30 min.". A propensity-score matched analysis (1:1 match) was performed to eliminate potential confounding factors between groups. We compared eGFR values, eGFR (%) preservation, eGFR decline, events of chronic kidney disease (CKD) upgrading, and CKD-free progression rates between both groups. Cox regression analysis evaluated WIT impact on upgrading of CKD stages. The primary cohort consisted of 3526 patients: group Ⅰ (n=2868) and group Ⅱ (n=658). After matching the final cohort consisted of 344 patients in each group. At last followup, there were no significant differences in median eGFR values at 1, 3, 5, and 10 years (P>0.05) between the matched groups. In addition, the median eGFR (%) preservation and absolute eGFR change were similar (89% in group Ⅰ vs. 87% in group Ⅱ, p=0.638) and (-10 in group Ⅰ vs. -11 in group Ⅱ, p=0.577), respectively. The 5 years new-onset CKD-free progression rates were comparable in the non-matched groups (79% in group Ⅰ vs. 81% in group Ⅱ, log-rank, p=0.763) and the matched groups (78.8% in group Ⅰ vs. 76.3% in group Ⅱ, log-rank, p=0.905). Univariable Cox regression analysis showed that WIT >30 min. was not a predictor of overall CKD upgrading (HR:0.953, 95%CI 0.829-1.094, p=0.764) nor upgrading into CKD stage ≥Ⅲ (HR:0.972, 95%CI 0.805-1.173, p=0.764). Retrospective design is a limitation of our study. Our analysis based on a large multicenter international cohort study suggests that WIT length during PN has no effect on the long-term renal function outcomes in patients having two kidneys and preoperative eGFR ≥60 ml/min/1.73m2.

We evaluated the early clinical and urodynamic results of posterior tibial nerve stimulation in patients with refractory monosymptomatic nocturnal enuresis. We randomly assigned 28 patients with refractory monosymptomatic nocturnal enuresis to 2 equal groups. Group 1 received a weekly session of posterior tibial nerve stimulation for 12 weeks and group 2 was the placebo group. Evaluation was performed in each group at baseline and after posterior tibial nerve stimulation to compare clinical and urodynamic findings. Another clinical assessment was done 3 months after the first followup. The 2 groups were comparable in baseline clinical and urodynamic data. Overall, 13 patients (46.4%) had detrusor overactivity and 14 (50%) had decreased bladder capacity. After treatment 11 group 1 patients (78.6%) had a partial or full response to posterior tibial nerve stimulation but only 2 (14.3%) in group 2 had a partial response (p = 0.002). Also, the average number of wet nights in group 1 was significantly lower than at baseline (p = 0.002). All urodynamic parameters significantly improved in group 1. In contrast, the number of wet nights and urodynamic parameters did not change significantly in group 2. At 3-month followup the number of patients with a partial or full response in group 1 had decreased from 11 (78.6%) to 6 (42.9%). No change was evident in group 2. Posterior tibial nerve stimulation can be a viable treatment option in some patients with refractory monosymptomatic nocturnal enuresis. However, deterioration in some responders with time suggests the need for maintenance protocols.

Background: COVID-19 pandemic has overwhelmed healthcare systems and limited access to surgical care. Urolithiasis can lead to emergencies and affect renal function during long-term follow-up. Therefore, timely and appropriate treatment is essential. Main text: This is a non-systematic review of the recently published recommendations regarding urolithiasis treatment options during COVID-19. Fourteen publications were the basis of our review. Regarding anesthesia methods, the optimal methods are still unknown. During COVID-19, most of the endo-urologists changed their routine clinical practice and elective surgical treatment approaches. Despite decreasing number of emergency visits and admissions for stone disease, patients tend to have leukocytosis, higher creatinine levels, increased grade 3 and 4 hydronephrosis, and higher incidence of complications compared to non-COVID-19 time. Several alarming indications if present, intervention should be performed within 24 h to prevent irreversible kidney damage, disease progression, or even death. Some endo-urologists prefer definitive stone treatment over temporarily drainage to reduce the number of emergency room visits and hospital admissions, except if infection is present or staged treatment is planned. Several clinical scenarios of non-emergency and non-urgent urinary stones are present; thus, endo-urologists should appropriately weigh patient’s risk and surgery benefit to decide to the proper intervention time. If risks outweighed benefits to the patient, postpone the surgery. Renal colic should be managed with medical expulsive therapy and proper pain control with close follow-up just in case it becomes an emergency. Indwelling JJ stent removal or exchange is a matter of debate; some endo-urologists recommend removing, while others recommend postponing. Conclusion: Treatment options for urinary stones have markedly changed during COVID-19 pandemic. The optimal anesthesia methods are still unknown. Emergency intervention is a must if any alarming indications exist. Emergency cases tend to have higher incidence of complications compared to non-COVID-19 time. For non-emergency and non-urgent urolithiasis, endo-urologists should make judicious treatment decision to prioritize urolithiasis treatment, and they should weigh benefits and risks before surgery.

To identify the impact of COVID-19 on endourology surgical practice in Saudi Arabia. A retrospective study of seven tertiary hospitals from January 2019 to April 2019, and from January 2020 to April 2020 was performed. Records of urology outpatient department (OPD) visits and endourology procedures in the first third of 2020 were analyzed and compared with those in the first third of 2019, as well as, during the full curfew time, i.e. April 2020 versus April 2019. Number of OPD visits in the first third of 2020 and 2019 were 19 499 and 26 594, respectively (p<0.001). Number of OPD visits in April 2020 was 1512, with a 78.6% decrease compared to that in April 2019, and among them 1373 (90.8%) were teleclinics. Number of elective procedures in the first third of 2020 has decreased by 34.3% (from 3025 to 1988) compared to that in the first third of 2019 (p<0.001). There were 120 elective procedures in April 2020, 84.1% lower than that in April 2019. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy, shockwave lithotripsy, and transurethral resection of prostate procedures declined by 94.2%, 98.5%, and 93.8%, respectively. Most procedures were performed as day surgery (85.0%). Number of emergency procedures in 2020 have fallen by 9.3% compared to 2019 (p=0.286). Urolithiasis was the commonest pathology (52.6%) presented to the emergency room (52.6%). During COVID-19 pandemic, urology services slashed by >75%, including OPD visits and elective endourology procedures. Most hospitals have changed their strategic preventive measures by increasing the rate of teleclinics and day surgeries.