Objectives To compare the number of patients attending the Urology Emergency Department (ED) of the Centro Hospitalar Universitário do Porto (CHUP), as well as their demographic characteristics, the reasons for admission, the clinical severity under the Manchester triage system (MTS), and the need for emergency surgery or hospitalisation, during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic and the equivalent period in 2019. Patients and methods Data were collected from patients attending the Urology ED of the CHUP over 3 weeks, from 11 March to 1 April 2020, and from the same period in the previous year (from 11 March to 1 April 2019). Results During the pandemic, 46.4% fewer patients visited our urological ED (122 vs 263). There was no significant difference in the mean age or the number of old patients (aged ≥65 years) between the two periods. However, significantly fewer female patients sought emergency urological services during the COVID‐19 pandemic period (32.7% vs 14.8%, P < 0.05). No significant differences were noted between different clinical severity groups under the MTS. In 2019, significantly less patients required hospitalisation. The most common reasons for admission, during both periods, were haematuria, renal colic and urinary tract infections. The authors recognise that the study has several limitations, namely, those inherent to its retrospective nature. Conclusion COVID‐19 significantly influenced people’s urological care‐seeking behaviour. Understanding the present situation is helpful for predicting future urological needs. Based on the results of this study, we have reason to speculate that people’s requirements for urological services might grow explosively in the post‐COVID‐19 period. There should be further studies about the real state of long‐term urological services and the consequences that this pandemic may have in terms of morbimortality not directly related to the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2.

HighlightsMenstrual cup is gaining more acceptance and it is important for clinicians to be aware of this device and its possible complications.It is important to be familiarized with these devices in order to recognize its complications.Mechanical complications may occur and the management of these problems could be variable.

No abstract

Summary Kidney volume has been proven to be a surrogate marker of nephron mass and renal function. We studied 190 donor and recipient pairs undergoing living donor kidney transplantation at our institution during 9 years. Different metrics of donor kidney volume (DKV) were explored: alone or indexed to recipient’s anthropometry, as body surface area (BSA). DKV/BSA (min. 49.7; P33rd 77.7; P67th 95.3; max. 176 cm3/m2) was chosen given its higher correlation with eGFR at 1 year, and recipients were divided according to its tertiles (T). The eGFR at 1 year was lower in T1, when compared with T2 (P = 0.015) and T3 (P < 0.001). In a multivariable model, a regression spline revealed that a DKV/BSA lower than 80 was significantly associated with an eGFR at 1 year <60. In the first 6 years, the overall annual eGFR slope was −0.90 ml/min/year. Acute rejection occurred in 19%, 11%, and 0% of patients in T1, T2, and T3, respectively (P < 0.001). DKV/BSA increased stepwise from cellular‐ (n = 12) to antibody‐mediated (n = 7) AR cases and to those without AR (n = 171; P = 0.002; no AR versus cellular AR). Lower DKV/BSA ratio was associated with significantly worse graft function and higher incidence of AR. Hence, it can be a tool for better selection of donors in order to improve graft outcomes, particularly in the setting of multiple potential living donors or kidney paired exchange programs.