COVID-19 and urology: A bibliometric analysis of the literature.

AIM: The aims of this research were to analyse the urological literature published during the COVID-19 pandemic and to guide future research. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Between 2019 and 2021, the Web of Science (WoS) All Databases collection was searched for publications related to COVID-19 and Urology. The keywords used during this search were coronavirus-19, COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, novel coronavirus, 2019-nCoV, pandemic and/or urology. The top 50 cited (T50) publications were also identified and summarized. Exported Microsoft Excel files, Visualization of Similarities viewer (VOSviewer) software and descriptive assessment were used for bibliometric and statistical analyses of the publications. RESULTS: In total, 582 publications related to COVID-19 and urology were identified. In these publications, the most active author, journal, country and organisation were Francesco Porpiglia, European Urology, the United States of America (USA) and La Paz University Hospital, respectively. The most commonly used keywords were telemedicine-telehealth, SARS-CoV-2, coronavirus, pandemic, residency, testicle, semen, kidney transplantation, endourology and surgery. The most worrying issues in the articles are the negative impact of COVID-19 on resident training and permanent damage to urological organs. CONCLUSIONS: We analysed all the articles related to COVID-19 and urology published to date in the WoS All Databases collection. The most commonly published articles were based on clinical and outpatient practice, telemedicine, residency training, transplantation, and testicles. The long-term adverse effects of the pandemic on urology practice and especially urological organs will need to be assessed further in future research.

Comparison of before and after COVID-19 urology practices of a pandemic hospital.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to compare the effects of COVID-19 on urology practice using pre- and post-pandemic data of a pandemic hospital. MATERIAL AND METHODS: March 11 is considered as the beginning of COVID-19 and, changes in the number of the outpatient clinic examinations, non-surgical procedures, and surgery in the 8-week period before and during the pandemic were evaluated by weeks. Age, gender, and comorbid diseases of the operated patients were compared statistically. The symptoms, complaints, mortality, and morbidity conditions of the patients were recorded by contacting them. Descriptive data and chi-square test were used. RESULTS: The number of COVID-19 cases has been reported as 8,916 for the hospital, 88,412 for the city and 150,593 for the country. The mean age of the operated patients before and after 11 March was 51 and 47, and comorbidities were 79 and 40, respectively, and there was no statistically significant difference(p<0.05). The number of patients examined was 2,309 and 868, the number of operated patients 173 and 94, the number of patients undergoing non-surgical procedures were 371 and 174, respectively. The names and numbers of surgical and non-surgical procedures are listed according to European Association of Urology (EAU) priority classification. In follow-up, no complication because of COVID-19 was observed in any patient. CONCLUSION: Our study showed that, although the numbers have decreased, similar operations can be performed in daily urology practice without any contamination and mortality during the pandemic compared to the prepandemic period, by taking precautions and following the algorithms.

Cross-continental comparison of safety and protection measures amongst urologists during COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the well-being of urologists worldwide during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, and whether they have adequate personal protective equipment knowledge and supplies appropriate to their clinical setting. METHODS: Urologists worldwide completed a Société Internationale d'Urologie online survey from 16 April 2020 until 1 May 2020. Analysis was carried out to evaluate their knowledge about protecting themselves and others in the workplace, including their confidence in their ability to remain safe at work, and any regional differences. RESULTS: There were 3488 respondents from 109 countries. Urologists who stated they were moderately comfortable that their work environment offers good protection against coronavirus disease 2019 showed a total mean satisfaction level of 5.99 (on a "0 = not at all" to "10 = very" scale). A large majority (86.33%) were confident about protecting themselves from coronavirus disease 2019 at work. However, only about one-third reported their institution provided the required personal protective equipment (35.78%), and nearly half indicated their hospital has or had limited personal protective equipment availability (48.08%). Worldwide, a large majority of respondents answered affirmatively for testing the healthcare team (83.09%). Approximately half of the respondents (52.85%) across all regions indicated that all surgical team members face an equal risk of contracting coronavirus disease 2019 (52.85%). Nearly one-third of respondents reported that they had experienced social avoidance (28.97%). CONCLUSIONS: Our results show that urologists lack up-to-date knowledge of preferred protocols for personal protective equipment selection and use, social distancing, and coronavirus disease 2019 testing. These data can provide insights into functional domains from which other specialties could also benefit.

Analysis of patients undergoing urological intervention amid the COVID-19: experience from the pandemic hospital.

PURPOSE: It is reported that surgical procedures performed during the COVID-19 pandemic are accompanied by high complications and risks. In this study, the urological interventions applied with appropriate infrastructure and protocols during the pandemic in the pandemic hospital that is carrying out the COVID-19 struggle are analyzed. METHODS: Urological interventions were reviewed in the 5-week period between March 11 and April 16. The distribution of outpatient and interventional procedures was determined by weeks concurrently along with the COVID-19 patient workload, and data in the country, subgroups were further analyzed. Patients intervened were divided into four groups as Emergency, High, Intermediate, and Low Priority cases according to the EAU recommendations. The COVID-19-related findings were recorded; staff and patient effects were reported. RESULTS: Of the 160 interventions, 65 were minimally invasive or open surgical intervention, 95 were non-surgical outpatient intervention, and the outpatient admission was 777. According to the priority level, 33 cases had emergency and high priority, 32 intermediate and low priority. COVID-19 quarantine and follow-up were performed at least 1 week in 22 (33.8%) operated patients at the last week, 43 (66.2%) patients who were operated in the previous 4 weeks followed up at least 2 weeks. No postoperative complications were encountered in any patient due to COVID-19 during the postoperative period. CONCLUSION: In the COVID-19 pandemic, precautions, isolation, and algorithms are required to avoid disruption in the intervention and follow-up of urology patients; priority urological interventions should not be disrupted in the presence of necessary experience and infrastructure.