Objectives: To determine if management of ureteric stones in the United Kingdom changed during the COVID-19 pandemic and whether this affected patient outcomes. Patients and methods: We conducted a multicentre retrospective study of adults with CT-proven ureteric stone disease at 39 UK hospitals during a pre-pandemic period (23/3/19 to 22/6/19) and a period during the pandemic (the 3-month period after the first SARS-CoV-2 case at individual sites). The primary outcome was success of primary treatment modality, defined as no further treatment required for the index ureteric stone. Our study protocol was published prior to data collection. Results: A total of 3735 patients were included (pre-pandemic=1956 patients; pandemic=1779 patients). Stone size was similar between groups (p>0.05). During the pandemic, patients had lower hospital admission rates (pre-pandemic=54.0% vs pandemic=46.5%, p<0.001), shorter length of stay (mean=4.1 vs. 3.3 days, p=0.02), and higher rates of use of medical expulsive therapy (17.4% vs. 25.4%, p<0.001). In patients who received interventional management (pre-pandemic n=787 vs. pandemic n=685), rates of ESWL (22.7% vs. 34.1%, p<0.001) and nephrostomy were higher (7.1% vs. 10.5%, p=0.03); and rates of ureteroscopy (57.2% vs. 47.5%, p<0.001), stent insertion (68.4% vs. 54.6%, p<0.001), and general anaesthetic (92.2% vs. 76.2%, p<0.001) were lower. There was no difference in success of primary treatment modality between patient cohorts (pre-pandemic=73.8% vs. pandemic=76.1%, P=0.11), nor when patients were stratified by treatment modality or stone size. Rates of operative complications, 30-day mortality, and readmission and renal function at 6 months did not differ between the data collection periods. Conclusions: During the COVID-19 pandemic, there were lower admission rates and fewer invasive procedures performed. Despite this, there were no differences in treatment success or outcomes. Our findings indicate that clinicians can safely adopt management strategies developed during the pandemic to treat more patients conservatively and in the community.

GDS - educational grants from Pfizer, AstraZeneca and Intuitive Surgical; consultancy fees from Pfizer, Merck, EUSA Pharma and CMR Surgical; Speaker fees from Pfizer; Trustee The Urology Foundation and Kidney Cancer UK; Travel expenses from Pfizer. OJW: consulting fees: Boston Scientific, EMS, Coloplast, Ambu, Astellas. Speaker fees: Education Boston Scientific, EMS, Coloplast, Ambu. Research grants Coloplast, EMSl; Trustee BAUS, Treasurer BAUS. BT: consulting fees: Boston Scientific; Speaker fees: Boston Scientific, Devicare, BJUI (subeditor); Data safety monitoring / advisory board: Boston Scientific.

https://www.doi.org/10.22374/JELEU.V3I3.96

None.

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:

The study was reviewed by the Oxford University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust Clinical Governance department and received approval as an Audit. Each participating site obtained local audit approval.

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.

Yes

MHVB and FG were responsible for conceptualisation. All authors were responsible for writing the first draft and revisions. AL, CD, JR, RK, and Members of the COVID Stone Collaborative were responsible for data collection. MHVB was responsible for data analysis. SH, GDS, BT, and OW were responsible for supervision. BT and OW are the guarantors. All authors have seen and approved the final version.