ABSTRACT
Introduction & Objectives: Women are underrepresented at scientific conferences, decreasing the visibility of female role models in academic surgical careers, which are vital for aspiring young female scientists. Importantly, the lack of female representation has been identified as a crucial barrier for promotion in surgical specialties and academic internal medicine.1 Is has been demonstrated, that outnumbered female representation intensifies negatives outcomes for professional women. The aim of this investigation was the evaluation of female representation at a large, national urological meeting. Materials & Methods: The program of the annual meetings of 2011, 2018, 2019 and the virtual conference in 2020 due to COVID-19 pandemic has been retrospectively quantified by gender and categorized by chair or speaker, type, and topic of the session. Descriptive statistics, univariate and multivariate analysis has been performed to identify gender inequity and variables influencing gender distribution. A p-value of <0.05 was considered significant. Results: A total of 2.504 chairs and speakers have been invited in 2018 and 2019. Female speakers or chairs were represented in 17.8%, indicating a gender gap of 64.7%. There was a total of 114 (14.6%) female chairs without significant differences between both years in 2018 and 2019 respectively [14.2% vs. 14.9%;p=0.772] and 331 (19.2%) female speakers with significant more women in 2019 [16.4% vs. 22.1%;p=0.003]. There were significant differences between session type, topic, and gender distribution for chairs and speakers, respectively. The topic surgical techniques was an independent variable for both, underrepresented female chairs and speakers, respectively (p<0.001). Furthermore, vocational policy and plenary session were not represented by any female chair in 2011, 2018 and 2019. In comparison, gender gap in 2011 was 74.2%, indicating a gap reduction of 1.2%/year. In a highly selected virtual program in 2020, gender gap increased to 70.4%. Conclusions: There is a lack of female role models indicated by a persistent gender gap at the urological annual meeting. If this development continues, gender equality is not expected in the next 50 years. We recommend the utilization of established simple rules for achieving gender equity at urological conferences.2 Furthermore, the abolition of antiquated perceptions, development, and integration of female urologists to the academic urological field must be actively supported and provided by the highest institutional levels to ensure substantial change for our future female urologists.
ABSTRACT
Introduction & Objectives: In this study, we investigated the safety of robotic surgery during the pandemic period concerning new-acquired COVID-19 infections for both patients, assessed by follow-up telephone interview, and healthcare workers, assessed by swab tests on SARS-CoV-2. Materials & Methods: We performed a retrospective single-centre cohort study of patients undergoing robotic surgery in the initial 2-months period of COVID-19 focusing on safety. Patients’ COVID-19 infection status was assessed by telephone follow-up at a minimum of 14 days (median: 48) after robotic surgery. All healthcare workers involved in robotic surgery including console surgeons, bedside surgeons, anesthetists, scrub nurses and anesthesia nurses were investigated for presence of SARS-CoV-2 in nasopharyngeal swabs at three different time points during the study period from 12 March to 11 May 2020. Results: After 61 robotic surgeries, 1 patient (1.6%) had a COVID-19 infection. 60 healthcare workers (4 console surgeons, 8 bedside surgeons, 21 anesthetists, 13 scrub nurses and 14 anesthesia nurses) that were cumulatively exposed to 1,187 hours of robotic surgery had no COVID-19 infection. One patient with proof of SARS-CoV-2 on postoperative day two after radical prostatectomy had complete recovery without need for ventilation. After this potentially contagious robotic surgery, 8 healthcare workers with direct patient contact had no COVID-19 infection after 2 weeks and follow-up with each 3 nasopharyngeal swabs. Conclusions: Early clinical experience of robotic surgery during COVID-19 pandemic on 61 patients shows that robotic surgery can be safely performed for both patients and healthcare workers. In particular, there was no COVID-19 infection among 8 healthcare workers with direct contact during potentially contagious robotic surgery on a patient for whom COVID-19 infection was proven two days after surgery.