ABSTRACT
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.
ABSTRACT
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.