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.

A systematic review and meta-analysis on delaying surgery for urothelial carcinoma of bladder and upper tract urothelial carcinoma: Implications for the COVID19 pandemic and beyond

Purpose The COVID-19 pandemic has led to competing strains on hospital resources and healthcare personnel. Patients with newly diagnosed invasive urothelial carcinomas of bladder (UCB) upper tract (UTUC) may experience delays to definitive radical cystectomy (RC) or radical nephro-ureterectomy (RNU) respectively. We evaluate the impact of delaying definitive surgery on survival outcomes for invasive UCB and UTUC. Methods We searched for all studies investigating delayed urologic cancer surgery in Medline and Embase up to June 2020. A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed. Results We identified a total of 30 studies with 32,591 patients. Across 13 studies (n = 12,201), a delay from diagnosis of bladder cancer/TURBT to RC was associated with poorer overall survival (HR 1.25, 95% CI: 1.09–1.45, p = 0.002). For patients who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy before RC, across the 5 studies (n = 4,316 patients), a delay between neoadjuvant chemotherapy and radical cystectomy was not found to be significantly associated with overall survival (pooled HR 1.37, 95% CI: 0.96–1.94, p = 0.08). For UTUC, 6 studies (n = 4,629) found that delay between diagnosis of UTUC to RNU was associated with poorer overall survival (pooled HR 1.55, 95% CI: 1.19–2.02, p = 0.001) and cancer-specific survival (pooled HR of 2.56, 95% CI: 1.50–4.37, p = 0.001). Limitations included between-study heterogeneity, particularly in the definitions of delay cut-off periods between diagnosis to surgery. Conclusions A delay from diagnosis of UCB or UTUC to definitive RC or RNU was associated with poorer survival outcomes. This was not the case for patients who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

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.

Implications and effects of COVID-19 on diagnosis and management of prostate cancer.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to uncertainty on the optimal management for prostate cancer (PCa). This narrative review aims to shed light on the optimal diagnosis and management of patients with or suspected to have PCa. RECENT FINDINGS: Faecal-oral or aerosol transmission is possible during prostate procedures; caution must be in place when performing digital rectal examinations, transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsies and prostate surgeries requiring general anaesthesia. Patients must also be triaged using preoperative polymerase chain reaction tests for COVID-19. COVID-19 has accelerated the adoption of multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI), reducing the need for prostate biopsy unless when absolutely indicated, and the risk of COVID-19 spread can be reduced. Combined with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) density, amongst other factors, multiparametric MRI could reduce unnecessary biopsies in patients with little chance of clinically significant PCa. Treatment of PCa should be stratified by the risk level and preferences of the patient. COVID-19 has accelerated the development of telemedicine and clinicians should utilise safe and effective teleconsultations to protect themselves and their patients. SUMMARY: COVID-19 transmission during prostate procedures is possible. Patients with a Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) of <3 and PSA density <0.15 ng/ml/ml are deemed low-risk and are safe to undergo surveillance without MRI-targeted biopsy. Intermediate- or high-risk patients should be offered definitive treatment within four months or 30days of diagnosis to avoid compromising treatment outcomes; three-month courses of neoadjuvant androgen deprivation therapy can be considered when a delay of surgery is anticipated.

Effects of Delayed Radical Prostatectomy and Active Surveillance on Localised Prostate Cancer-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

External factors, such as the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), can lead to cancellations and backlogs of cancer surgeries. The effects of these delays are unclear. This study summarised the evidence surrounding expectant management, delay radical prostatectomy (RP), and neoadjuvant hormone therapy (NHT) compared to immediate RP. MEDLINE and EMBASE was searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised controlled studies pertaining to the review question. Risks of biases (RoB) were evaluated using the RoB 2.0 tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. A total of 57 studies were included. Meta-analysis of four RCTs found overall survival and cancer-specific survival were significantly worsened amongst intermediate-risk patients undergoing active monitoring, observation, or watchful waiting but not in low- and high-risk patients. Evidence from 33 observational studies comparing delayed RP and immediate RP is contradictory. However, conservative estimates of delays over 5 months, 4 months, and 30 days for low-risk, intermediate-risk, and high-risk patients, respectively, have been associated with significantly worse pathological and oncological outcomes in individual studies. In 11 RCTs, a 3-month course of NHT has been shown to improve pathological outcomes in most patients, but its effect on oncological outcomes is apparently limited.

How to manage patients with suspected upper tract urothelial carcinoma in the pandemic of COVID-19?

BACKGROUND: The pandemic of COVID-19 has disrupted the clinical pathway for patients with suspected upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC). This aims to investigate the optimal management of UTUC during the pandemic by determining 1) Whether a three-month delay of RNU leads to worsened overall survival, 2) Whether radical nephroureterectomy (RNU) can be performed without prior diagnostic ureteroscopy (URS). METHODS: Consecutive patients with RNU performed for suspected UTUC in four hospitals in Hong Kong and Taiwan were included. Patients with histologically proven UTUC and with RNU performed within one year were dichotomized into early (≤3 months) and delayed (>3 months) RNU groups. Diagnostic performances of predictive models based on pre-URS factors (gross haematuria, suspicious or malignant urine cytology, and filling defect or contrast-enhancing mass on computed tomography), with or without URS, were analysed using receiver operating characteristics and area under curve (AUC). Overall survival was analysed using Kaplan-Meier method and multivariate Cox regression analysis. RESULTS: Between 2000 and 2019, 665 patients underwent RNU, and 491 of them had prior diagnostic URS. The early RNU group had a better overall survival (P = 0.015). Early RNU was associated with a better overall survival upon multivariate analysis (HR 1.55, 95% CI 1.03-2.33, P = 0.035). Large tumour size, multi-focal tumour, T2 or above disease, and positive nodal status were associated with a poorer overall survival. A combination of any 2 out of the 3 pre-URS factors achieved a positive predictive value of 99.5 to 100%. Presence of all 3 pre-URS factors achieved an AUC of 0.851 with URS, and AUC of 0.809 without URS. CONCLUSIONS: A delay of RNU for over 3 months was associated with poorer overall survival and has to be avoided despite the current COVID-19. We can also consider direct RNU based on clinical factors alone. This also avoids URS hospitalization and expedites the clinical pathway of UTUC.

The Uro-oncology Patient and Vaccination Against SARS-CoV-2.

As of April 13, 2021, 137 million cases of COVID-19 and 2.95 million deaths have been reported worldwide. On December 21, 2020, the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine was approved for use in the European Union, with efficacy of 95% protection against COVID-19 infection. Several other vaccines are at different stages of assessment by the European Medicines Agency. In addition to the elderly, oncology patients are a vulnerable population in which COVID-19 infection may be more severe. However, owing to the design of the initial studies, evidence on the safety and efficacy of vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 in these patients is scarce and recommendations are based on the opinion of associations, stakeholders, and experts via extrapolation of information and experience for other vaccines, especially influenza vaccines. Despite the limited evidence, the consensus is that SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are safe and vaccination of oncology patients and their close relatives is recommended, although efficacy may be lower in patients with an impaired immune response and the need for additional booster doses is not yet clear. Recommendations include avoiding the use of vaccines based on viral vectors for patients with an impaired immune response, deferring vaccination for immunosuppressed patients or administering the vaccine before immunosuppression, and avoiding chemotherapy receipt between the two doses of a vaccine or on the same day that the vaccine is administered. These recommendations can be extrapolated to urology patients and although evidence is lacking, there should not be greater interference with SARS-CoV-2 vaccines from androgen deprivation therapy or intravesical bacillus Calmette-Guérin. However, large studies to provide strong evidence for uro-oncology patients are needed. PATIENT SUMMARY: We looked at the effects of COVID-19 vaccination for patients with urological cancers. The consensus is that the vaccines are safe, and vaccination of cancer patients and their close relatives is recommended.

Delayed surgery for localised and metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis for the COVID-19 pandemic.

PURPOSE: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to the cancellation or deferment of many elective cancer surgeries. We performed a systematic review on the oncological effects of delayed surgery for patients with localised or metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) in the targeted therapy (TT) era. METHOD: The protocol of this review is registered on PROSPERO(CRD42020190882). A comprehensive literature search was performed on Medline, Embase and Cochrane CENTRAL using MeSH terms and keywords for randomised controlled trials and observational studies on the topic. Risks of biases were assessed using the Cochrane RoB tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. For localised RCC, immediate surgery [including partial nephrectomy (PN) and radical nephrectomy (RN)] and delayed surgery [including active surveillance (AS) and delayed intervention (DI)] were compared. For metastatic RCC, upfront versus deferred cytoreductive nephrectomy (CN) were compared. RESULTS: Eleven studies were included for quantitative analysis. Delayed surgery was significantly associated with worse cancer-specific survival (HR 1.67, 95% CI 1.23-2.27, p < 0.01) in T1a RCC, but no significant difference was noted for overall survival. For localised ≥ T1b RCC, there were insufficient data for meta-analysis and the results from the individual reports were contradictory. For metastatic RCC, upfront TT followed by deferred CN was associated with better overall survival when compared to upfront CN followed by deferred TT (HR 0.61, 95% CI 0.43-0.86, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Noting potential selection bias, there is insufficient evidence to support the notion that delayed surgery is safe in localised RCC. For metastatic RCC, upfront TT followed by deferred CN should be considered.

Acute kidney injury in COVID-19: are kidneys the target or just collateral damage? A comprehensive assessment of viral RNA and AKI rate in patients with COVID-19.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To investigate the possible effects of severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) on kidney function and assess the rate of viral ribonucleic acid (RNA) shedding/detection in urine. RECENT FINDINGS: Most of the research on the topic suggests that for the moment our ability to estimate whether SARS-CoV-2 is a direct causative agent in acute kidney injury (AKI) or whether it has a cytokine storm effect is limited. During our prospective assessment of 333 patients with COronaVIrus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) it was found that frequency of AKI of 9.6% (32 cases). Despite previous data suggestive of the ability to detect SARS-CoV-2 in urine, we were unable to identify any traces of messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) in our group. Both COVID-19 severity (odds ratio, OR = 23.09, confidence interval, CI 7.89-67.57, P < 0.001) and chronic kidney disease (CKD) history (OR = 7.17, CI 2.09-24.47, P = 0.002) were associated with the AKI rate. SUMMARY: AKI is a relatively frequent condition for patients with COVID-19 and is normally correlated with the severity of the disease and the patient's history of CKD. The available data fail to address whether SARS-CoV-2 mRNA is present in urine, whereas our prospective trial data suggest that mRNA is undetectable in urine irrespective of the severity of the disease.

Risks of AKI and Major Adverse Clinical Outcomes in Patients with Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome or Coronavirus Disease 2019.

BACKGROUND: Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are closely related. The effect of AKI on the clinical outcomes of these two conditions is unclear. METHODS: This retrospective, territory-wide cohort study used an electronic public healthcare database in Hong Kong to identify patients with SARS or COVID-19 by diagnosis codes, virologic results, or both. The primary endpoint was a composite of intensive care unit admission, use of invasive mechanical ventilation, and/or death. RESULTS: We identified 1670 patients with SARS and 1040 patients with COVID-19 (median ages, 41 versus 35 years, respectively). Among patients with SARS, 26% met the primary endpoint versus 5.3% of those with COVID-19. Diabetes mellitus, abnormal liver function, and AKI were factors significantly associated with the primary endpoint among patients with either SARS or COVID-19. Among patients with SARS, 7.9%, 2.1%, and 3.7% developed stage 1, stage 2, and stage 3 AKI, respectively; among those with COVID-19, 6.6%, 0.4%, and 1.1% developed stage 1, stage 2, and stage 3 AKI, respectively. In both groups, factors significantly associated with AKI included diabetes mellitus and hypertension. Among patients with AKI, those with COVID-19 had a lower rate of major adverse clinical outcomes versus patients with SARS. Renal function recovery usually occurred within 30 days after an initial AKI event. CONCLUSIONS: AKI rates were higher among patients with SARS than those with COVID-19. AKI was associated with major adverse clinical outcomes for both diseases. Patients with diabetes mellitus and abnormal liver function were also at risk of developing severe consequences after SARS and COVID-19 infection.

Transmission of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 1 and Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 During Aerosol-Generating Procedures in Critical Care: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the risk of coronavirus transmission to healthcare workers performing aerosol-generating procedures and the potential benefits of personal protective equipment during these procedures. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched using a combination of related MeSH terms and keywords. STUDY SELECTION: Cohort studies and case controls investigating common anesthetic and critical care aerosol-generating procedures and transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 1, Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus, and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 to healthcare workers were included for quantitative analysis. DATA EXTRACTION: Qualitative and quantitative data on the transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 1, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus to healthcare workers via aerosol-generating procedures in anesthesia and critical care were collected independently. The Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies - of Interventions tool was used to assess the risk of bias of included studies. DATA SYNTHESIS: Seventeen studies out of 2,676 yielded records were included for meta-analyses. Endotracheal intubation (odds ratio, 6.69, 95% CI, 3.81-11.72; p < 0.001), noninvasive ventilation (odds ratio, 3.65; 95% CI, 1.86-7.19; p < 0.001), and administration of nebulized medications (odds ratio, 10.03; 95% CI, 1.98-50.69; p = 0.005) were found to increase the odds of healthcare workers contracting severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 1 or severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. The use of N95 masks (odds ratio, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.03-0.39; p < 0.001), gowns (odds ratio, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.48-0.73; p < 0.001), and gloves (odds ratio, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.29-0.53; p < 0.001) were found to be significantly protective of healthcare workers from contracting severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 1 or severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. CONCLUSIONS: Specific aerosol-generating procedures are high risk for the transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 1 and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 from patients to healthcare workers. Personal protective equipment reduce the odds of contracting severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 1 and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2.

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.

COVID-19 Pandemic Impact on Urology Residencies in Asia - An Observational Study

Abstract Objective The Coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) pandemic affected surgical training in many ways. This observational study was carried out to evaluate the impact of Covid-19 on urological residencies across Asia. Methodology An open-ended survey questionnaire examining key areas in a urology training program was distributed to several urologists in Asia. The survey evaluated seven areas including the burden of Covid-19 disease, the need for re-deployment of residents, the impact on clinical work, the effect on research work for residents, the delivery of teaching to the residents, the impact on training and assessments, the effects on mental, personal health and social welfare of residents. Results Reports from eleven Asian countries were analysed. There is stark variability in Covid-19 disease burden across Asia. Re-deployment occurred in selected Asian countries. Affected residents reported challenges obtaining personal protective equipment and training. Clinical workload and research were generally reduced except for countries reporting low volume Covid-19 cases. Residents teaching evolved from in-person to online platforms. Almost all residency program postponed their examinations. Mental health disturbance was more pronounced than personal health. Conclusions The Covid-19 pandemic presented multiple obstacles towards Asian urology residencies. The understanding of these challenges will assist program directors in developing mitigating measures.

Special strategies and management of urological diseases during the COVID-19 Pandemic: initial experiences from a Medical Center of China

ABSTRACT Although urological diseases are not directly related to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), urologists need to make comprehensive plans for this disease. Urological conditions such as benign prostatic hyperplasia and tumors are very common in elderly patients. This group of patients is often accompanied by underlying comorbidities or immune dysfunction. They are at higher risk of COVID-19 infection and they tend to have severe manifestations. Although fever can occur along with urological infections, it is actually one of the commonest symptoms of COVID-19;urologists must always maintain a high index of suspicion in their clinical practices. As a urological surgeon, how we can protect medical staff during surgery is a major concern. Our hospital had early adoption of a series of strict protective and control measures, and was able to avoid cross-infection and outbreak of COVID-19. This paper discusses the effective measures that can be useful when dealing with urological patients with COVID-19.

The potential impact of previous exposure to SARS or MERS on control of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is believed to share similar characteristics with SARS in 2003 and Mediterranean East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) in 2012. We hypothesized that countries with previous exposure to SARS and MERS were significantly more likely to have fewer cases and deaths from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We retrieved the incidence of COVID-19 per 100,000 population within 30 days since the first confirmed case was reported from the 2019 Novel COVID-19 data repository by the Johns Hopkins Centre for Systems Science and Engineering for 94 countries. The association between previous exposure to SARS and/or MERS and the 30-day COVID-19 incidence rate was examined by multivariable linear regression analysis, whilst controlling for potential confounders including the INFORM COVID-19 Risk Index, Testing Policies, Democracy Index, Scientific Citation Index, Gross Domestic Product (GDP), Human Development Index (HDI) and the population density of each country. We found that countries with previous exposure to SARS and/or MERS epidemics were significantly more likely to have lower incidence of COVID-19 (ß coefficient - 225.6, 95% C.I. - 415.8,- 35.4, p = 0.021). However, countries being classified as having "full democracy" using Democracy Index had higher incidence of COVID-19 (reference: authoritarian regime; ß coefficient 425.0, 95% C.I. 98.0, 752.0, p = 0.011). This implies that previous exposure to global epidemics and Democracy Index for a country are associated its performance in response to COVID-19. We recommend future studies should evaluate the impact of various pandemic control strategies at individual, community, and policy levels on mitigation of the disease.

Telemedicine and Smart Working: Recommendations of the European Association of Urology.

CONTEXT: Telemedicine provides remote clinical support using technological tools. It may facilitate health care delivery while reducing unnecessary visits to the clinic. The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak has caused an abrupt change in our daily urological practice, converting many of us to be reliant on telehealth. OBJECTIVE: To provide practical recommendations for effective use of technological tools in telemedicine. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A Medline-based and gray literature search was conducted through April 2020. We selected the most relevant articles related to "telemedicine" and "smart working" that could provide important information. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Telemedicine refers to the use of electronic information and telecommunications tools to provide remote clinical health care support. Smart working is a model of work that uses new or existing technologies to improve performance. Telemedicine is becoming a useful invaluable tool during and even beyond the COVID-19 pandemic. It is time for us to formalize the place of telemedicine in routine urological practice, and it is our responsibility to adapt and learn about all the tools and possible strategies for their optimal implementation during the pandemic to ensure that the quality of care received by patients and the outcomes of patients and their families are of the highest standard. CONCLUSIONS: Telemedicine facilitates specialized urological clinical support at a distance, solves problems of limitations in mobility, reduces unnecessary visits to clinics, and is useful for reducing the risk of viral transmission in the current COVID-19 outbreak. Furthermore, both personal and societal considerations may favor continued use of telemedicine, even beyond the COVID-19 pandemic. PATIENT SUMMARY: Telemedicine in urology offers specialized remote clinical support to patients, similar to face-to-face visits. It is very useful for reducing unnecessary visits to the clinic, as well as reducing the risk of contagion in the current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.

Special strategies and management of urological diseases during the COVID-19 pandemic: initial experiences from a Medical Center of China.

Although urological diseases are not directly related to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), urologists need to make comprehensive plans for this disease. Urological conditions such as benign prostatic hyperplasia and tumors are very common in elderly patients. This group of patients is often accompanied by underlying comorbidities or immune dysfunction. They are at higher risk of COVID-19 infection and they tend to have severe manifestations. Although fever can occur along with urological infections, it is actually one of the commonest symptoms of COVID-19; urologists must always maintain a high index of suspicion in their clinical practices. As a urological surgeon, how we can protect medical staff during surgery is a major concern. Our hospital had early adoption of a series of strict protective and control measures, and was able to avoid cross-infection and outbreak of COVID-19. This paper discusses the effective measures that can be useful when dealing with urological patients with COVID-19.

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.