Safety and Feasibility of Telehealth Only Preoperative Evaluation Before Minimally Invasive Robotic Urologic Surgery.

Purpose: Telehealth utilization has increased dramatically over the past few years due to improvement in technology and the COVID-19 pandemic. To date, no study has examined whether a telehealth visit alone for preoperative evaluation is safe and sufficient before surgery. We examined the safety and feasibility of preoperative telehealth visits alone before minimally invasive urologic surgery. Materials and Methods: Single institution retrospective review of robotic prostate, kidney, and cystectomy procedures between April and December 2020. Cases were dichotomized into those who underwent preoperative evaluation by telehealth only vs traditional in-person visits. Outcomes included complications, blood loss, conversion to open surgery rates, and operative times. We assessed efficiency of care by measuring time from preoperative visit to surgery. Results: Three hundred fourteen patients were included in the study, with 14% of cases (n = 45) being performed after a preoperative telehealth visit. The majority of cases included in analysis were robotic surgeries of the prostate (56.1% of all cases, n = 176) and the kidney (35.0% of all cases, n = 110). Patients seen via telehealth alone preoperatively had no significant differences in any grade of complications, perioperative outcomes, blood loss, operative time, and length of stay. There was no difference in change in anticipated procedure between the groups, and there was no case of conversion to open surgery in the telehealth only group. Time from preoperative visit to surgery was significantly shorter for the telehealth group by 13 days. Conclusions: Our study is the first to analyze the safety of telehealth only preoperative visits before minimally invasive urologic surgery. We found no difference in perioperative outcomes including conversion to open surgery or change in planned procedure. Furthermore, telehealth preoperative visits appeared to facilitate shorter time to surgery. This study has important implications for expediting patient care and medicolegal considerations.

Trends in urologic oncology clinical practice and medical education under COVID-19 pandemic: An international survey of senior clinical and academic urologists.

OBJECTIVE: Ad-hoc guidelines for managing the COVID-19 pandemic are published worldwide. We investigated international applications of such policies in the urologic-oncology community. METHODS: A 20-item survey was e-mailed via SurveyMonkey to 100 international senior urologic-oncology surgeons. Leaders' policies regarding clinical/surgical management and medical education were surveyed probing demographics, affiliations, urologic-oncologic areas of interest, and current transportation restrictions. Data on COVID-19 burden were retrieved from the ECDC. Statistical analyses employed non-parametric tests (SPSS v.25.0, IBM). RESULTS: Of 100 leaders from 17 countries, 63 responded to our survey, with 58 (92%) reporting university and/or cancer-center affiliations. Policies on new-patient visits remained mostly unchanged, while follow-up visits for low-risk diseases were mostly postponed, for example, 83.3% for small renal mass (SRM). Radical prostatectomy was delayed in 76.2% of cases, while maintaining scheduled timing for radical cystectomy (71.7%). Delays were longer in Europe than in the Americas for kidney cancer (SRM follow-up, P = 0.014), prostate cancer (new visits, P = 0.003), and intravesical therapy for intermediate-risk bladder cancer (P = 0.043). In Europe, COVID-19 burden correlated with policy adaptation, for example, nephrectomy delays for T2 disease (r = 0.5, P =0.005). Regarding education policies, trainees' medical education was mainly unchanged, whereas senior urologists' planned attendance at professional meetings dropped from 6 (IQR 1-11) to 2 (IQR 0-5) (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Under COVID-19, senior urologic-oncology surgeons worldwide apply risk-stratified approaches to timing of clinical and surgical schedules. Policies regarding trainee education were not significantly affected. We suggest establishment of an international consortium to create a directive for coping with such future challenges to global healthcare.