Psychological Health of Surgeons in a Time of COVID-19: A Global Survey.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the degree of psychological impact among surgical providers during the COVID-19 pandemic. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: The COVID-19 pandemic has extensively impacted global healthcare systems. We hypothesized that the degree of psychological impact would be higher for surgical providers deployed for COVID-19 work, certain surgical specialties, and for those who knew of someone diagnosed with, or who died, of COVID-19. METHODS: We conducted a global web-based survey to investigate the psychological impact of COVID-19. The primary outcomes were the Depression Anxiety Stress Scale-21 (DASS-21) and Impact of Event Scale-Revised (IES-R) scores. RESULTS: 4283 participants from 101 countries responded. 32.8%, 30.8%, 25.9% and 24.0% screened positive for depression, anxiety, stress and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) respectively. Respondents who knew someone who died of COVID-19 were more likely to screen positive for depression, anxiety, stress and PTSD (OR 1.3, 1,6, 1.4, 1.7 respectively, all p < 0.05). Respondents who knew of someone diagnosed with COVID-19 were more likely to screen positive for depression, stress and PTSD (OR 1.2, 1.2 and 1.3 respectively, all p < 0.05). Surgical specialities that operated in the Head and Neck region had higher psychological distress among its surgeons. Deployment for COVID-19-related work was not associated with increased psychological distress. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic may have a mental health legacy outlasting its course. The long-term impact of this ongoing traumatic event underscores the importance of longitudinal mental health care for healthcare personnel, with particular attention to those who know of someone diagnosed with, or who died of COVID-19.

Comparison and outcomes of dusting versus stone fragmentation and extraction in retrograde intrarenal surgery: results of a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Introduction: Lithotripsy during retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) can be achieved either by fragmentation and extraction or dusting with spontaneous passage. We aimed to perform a systematic review on the safety and stone-free rate after RIRS by comparing the techniques of dusting vs fragmentation/extraction. Material and methods: This review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses statement. The inverse variance of the mean difference and 95% Confidence Interval (CI), Categorical variables were assessed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Method with the random effect model and reported as Odds Ratio (OR) and 95% CI. Statistical significance was set at p <0.05. Results: There were 1141 patients included in 10 studies. Stone size was up to 2.5 cm All studies used holmium laser for lithotripsy. Meta-analysis showed no significant difference in surgical time (MD -5.39 minutes 95% CI -13.92-2.31, p = 0.16), postoperative length of stay (MD -0.19 days 95% CI -0.60 - -0.22, p=0.36), overall complications (OR 0.98 95% CI 0.58-1.66, p = 0.95), hematuria (OR 1.01 95% CI 0.30-3.42, p = 0.99), postoperative fever (OR 0.70 95% CI 0.41-1.19, p = 0.19) and sepsis (OR 1.03 95% CI 0.10-10.35, p = 0.98), immediate (OR 0.40 95% CI 0.13-1.24, p = 0.11) and overall stone-free rate (OR 0.76 95% CI 0.43-1.32, p = 0.33), and retreatment rate (OR 1.35 95% CI 0.57-3.20, p = 0.49) between the groups. Conclusions: This systematic review infers that urologists can safely use either option of fragmentation and basket extraction or dusting without extraction to achieve similar outcomes as both techniques are similar for efficacy and safety.

Influence of Webinar-Based Learning on Practice of Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy: Outcomes of a Global Survey.

Background: With webinars looking to be the mainstay post-pandemic, it is important to demonstrate whether webinars are, indeed, effective educational tools for professional training and skill acquisition. We aim at demonstrating, via a global survey, the efficacy of webinars on percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) and how this knowledge transforms clinical practice. Methods: A structured online survey covering the following sections: (1) Demographics, (2) PCNL techniques, and (3) PCNL equipment was circulated. The target study population were practicing urologists and residents. Categorical data were presented with counts and percentages, and they were compared by using Chi-square test. Continuous data were analyzed with non-parametric methods. Respondents were dichotomized according to attendance of webinar type, attendees of dedicated PCNL webinars (Group A), or attendees of endourological webinars that discussed some aspects of PCNL (Group B). Results: A total of 303 respondents from 38 countries participated. Overall, 91.7% (n = 278) were in Group A and 8.3% (n = 25) were in Group B; 77.9% were younger than 50 years, whereas 51.8% had more than 10 years of urology experience. In group A, urologists of all ages, in academic institutions and private practitioners, significantly benefited in gaining knowledge about the merits of newer devices and the role of suction-assisted devices in modern PCNL. The majority of group A also reflected that by attending a dedicated PCNL-based webinar they benefited in learning newer positions for PCNL access, especially supine, and how to effectively use laser as energy devices for lithotripsy. In Group B, the only area of benefit was in lasing techniques and the use of newer lasers such as the thulium fibre laser. Conclusion: Our survey positively validates the two proposed hypothesis, that is, webinars as a medium of education do benefit practicing urologists in knowledge and the clinical practice domains. Age, experience, or place of practice is no barrier to adopting newer mediums of education such as webinars.

Will "Hybrid" Meetings Replace Face-To-Face Meetings Post COVID-19 Era? Perceptions and Views From The Urological Community.

OBJECTIVE: To understand the preference and role of 'hybrid' urological meetings compared to face-to-face and online meetings during and after COVID-19 pandemic. The secondary outcome was finding out the most preferable webinar setting. METHODS: An online global survey was done between June 06 and July 05, 2020, using SurveyMonkey. The target participants were urology healthcare providers. The survey was disseminated via mailing lists and the Twitter platform. RESULTS: A total of 526 urology providers from 56 countries responded to the survey and it was completed by 73.3%. Participants' overall experience was better in a face-to-face meeting, followed by a hybrid and webinar only meeting. While opportunities for networking was identified as high in face-to-face meeting, online webinars were more cost effective, and learning opportunity and reach of audience was higher for hybrid meetings. For online webinar format, Zoom platform was used by 73% and majority (69%) saw it on their laptop or desktop. The preference was for a 1-hour webinar in the evenings with 3-5 speakers. Urology residents rated face-to-face meetings to have better cost-effectiveness when compared to consultants. Post COVID-19, more than half of all respondents would prefer hybrid meetings compared to the other formats. CONCLUSION: While there will be a place for face-to-face meetings, COVID-19 situation has led to a preference towards hybrid meetings which is ideal for a global reach in the future. It is plausible that most urological associations will move towards a hybrid model for their meetings.

A Global Survey on the Impact of COVID-19 on Urological Services.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization (WHO) declared coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) as a pandemic on March 11, 2020. The impact of COVID-19 on urological services in different geographical areas is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the global impact of COVID-19 on urological providers and the provision of urological patient care. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A cross-sectional, web-based survey was conducted from March 30, 2020 to April 7, 2020. A 55-item questionnaire was developed to investigate the impact of COVID-19 on various aspects of urological services. Target respondents were practising urologists, urology trainees, and urology nurses/advanced practice providers. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary outcome was the degree of reduction in urological services, which was further stratified by the geographical location, degree of outbreak, and nature and urgency of urological conditions. The secondary outcome was the duration of delay in urological services. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 1004 participants responded to our survey, and they were mostly based in Asia, Europe, North America, and South America. Worldwide, 41% of the respondents reported that their hospital staff members had been diagnosed with COVID-19 infection, 27% reported personnel shortage, and 26% had to be deployed to take care of COVID-19 patients. Globally, only 33% of the respondents felt that they were given adequate personal protective equipment, and many providers expressed fear of going to work (47%). It was of concerning that 13% of the respondents were advised not to wear a surgical face mask for the fear of scaring their patients, and 21% of the respondents were advised not to discuss COVID-19 issues or concerns on media. COVID-19 had a global impact on the cut-down of urological services, including outpatient clinic appointments, outpatient investigations and procedures, and urological surgeries. The degree of cut-down of urological services increased with the degree of COVID-19 outbreak. On average, 28% of outpatient clinics, 30% of outpatient investigations and procedures, and 31% of urological surgeries had a delay of >8 wk. Urological services for benign conditions were more affected than those for malignant conditions. Finally, 47% of the respondents believed that the accumulated workload could be dealt with in a timely manner after the COVID-19 outbreak, but 50% thought the postponement of urological services would affect the treatment and survival outcomes of their patients. One of the limitations of this study is that Africa, Australia, and New Zealand were under-represented. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 had a profound global impact on urological care and urology providers. The degree of cut-down of urological services increased with the degree of COVID-19 outbreak and was greater for benign than for malignant conditions. One-fourth of urological providers were deployed to assist with COVID-19 care. Many providers reported insufficient personal protective equipment and support from hospital administration. PATIENT SUMMARY: Coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) has led to significant delay in outpatient care and surgery in urology, particularly in regions with the most COVID-19 cases. A considerable proportion of urology health care professionals have been deployed to assist in COVID-19 care, despite the perception of insufficient training and protective equipment.