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.

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.

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.

A Systematic Review on Guidelines and Recommendations for Urology Standard of Care During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

CONTEXT: The first case of the new coronavirus, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV2), was identified in Wuhan, China, in late 2019. Since then, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak was reclassified as a pandemic, and health systems around the world have faced an unprecedented challenge. OBJECTIVE: To summarize guidelines and recommendations on the urology standard of care during the COVID-19 pandemic. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Guidelines and recommendations published between November 2019 and April 17, 2020 were retrieved using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL. This was supplemented by searching the web pages of international urology societies. Our inclusion criteria were guidelines, recommendations, or best practice statements by international urology organizations and reference centers about urological care in different phases of the COVID-19 pandemic. Our systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement. Of 366 titles identified, 15 guidelines met our criteria. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Of the 15 guidelines, 14 addressed emergency situations and 12 reported on assessment of elective uro-oncology procedures. There was consensus on postponing radical prostatectomy except for high-risk prostate cancer, and delaying treatment for low-grade bladder cancer, small renal masses up to T2, and stage I seminoma. According to nine guidelines that addressed endourology, obstructed or infected kidneys should be decompressed, whereas nonobstructing stones and stent removal should be rescheduled. Five guidelines/recommendations discussed laparoscopic and robotic surgery, while the remaining recommendations focused on outpatient procedures and consultations. All recommendations represented expert opinions, with three specifically endorsed by professional societies. Only the European Association of Urology guidelines provided evidence-based levels of evidence (mostly level 3 evidence). CONCLUSIONS: To make informed decisions during the COVID-19 pandemic, there are multiple national and international guidelines and recommendations for urologists to prioritize the provision of care. Differences among the guidelines were minimal. PATIENT SUMMARY: We performed a systematic review of published recommendations on urological practice during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, which provide guidance on prioritizing the timing for different types of urological care.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on the Urologist's clinical practice in Brazil: a management guideline proposal for low- and middle-income countries during the crisis period.

This letter to the Editor aims to provide suggestions and recommendations for the management of urological conditions in times of COVID-19 crisis in Brazil and other low- and middle-income countries. It is important to highlight that one of the main characteristics of this pandemic is the oversaturation of the health system capacity, mostly due to a high demand for personal protective equipment (PPE), Hospital/ICU beds, as well as ventilators. In places with limited resources and where the health care systems are already saturated, such consideration is even more worrisome. Therefore, most worldwide authorities are recommending to avoid, as much as possible, patient's elective visits to hospitals, as well as a judicious use of the operating room in order to mitigate the strain put on the health system. While efforts should be directed to the care of COVID-19 patients, other conditions (especially urgencies and oncological cases) must continue to be assisted. Thus, through a panel of experts, we have prepared a practical guide for Thus, through a panel of experts, we have prepared a practical guide for urologists based on the recommendations from the main Urologic Associations, as well as data from the literature to support the suggested management. We will try to follow the standard guideline recommendations from the American Urological Association (AUA) and European Association of Urology (EAU), with the aim of pursuing the best outcomes possible. However, some recommendations were based on the consensus of the panel, taking into consideration the reality of developing countries and the unprecedented situation caused by the COVID-19 crisis. Most importantly, all recommendations on this manuscript are based on the expectancy of a maximum 3-month duration of the crisis. If this period shall extended, these recommendations will be revised and updated.