Guidelines for Urological Surgeries in the COVID-19 Pandemic: Is it Time for Revision?

In this correspondence the authors try to show that guidelines and recommendations including what was published by EAU rapid reaction group must be further updated and tailored according to different epidemiologic data in different countries. The authors assign the countries worldwide in three categories. First category comprises countries that experience the secondary surges smoother than the first one. The second category include countries with stronger or -merging and rising-secondary surges and the third category encompasses countries with successful initial response and secondary stronger but still more controllable surges. Authors proclaim that after passing the first baffling impact we find out that postponement strategies preached in many of these scout treatises are no more suitable at least for the countries delineated in the second category and can culminate in performance of procedures in worse. The authors proffer Iranian Urology Association COVID-19 Taskforce Pamphlet(IUA-CTP) as a paragonic document mentioning it's the time we must recognise the wide variability of the situation in different regions and any advisory position must consider this huge variance in epidemiologic profile.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Urological Care Delivery in the United States.

PURPOSE: We examined changes in urological care delivery due to COVID-19 in the U.S. based on patient, practice, and local/regional demographic and pandemic response features. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed real-world data from the American Urological Association Quality (AQUA) Registry collected from electronic health record systems. Data represented 157 outpatient urological practices and 3,165 providers across 48 U.S. states and territories, including 3,297,721 unique patients, 12,488,831 total outpatient visits and 2,194,456 procedures. The primary outcome measure was the number of outpatient visits and procedures performed (inpatient or outpatient) per practice per week, measured from January 2019 to February 2021. RESULTS: We found large (>50%) declines in outpatient visits from March 2020 to April 2020 across patient demographic groups and states, regardless of timing of state stay-at-home orders. Nonurgent outpatient visits decreased more across various nonurgent procedures (49%-59%) than for procedures performed for potentially urgent diagnoses (38%-52%); surgical procedures for nonurgent conditions also decreased more (43%-79%) than those for potentially urgent conditions (43%-53%). African American patients had similar decreases in outpatient visits compared with Asians and Caucasians, but also slower recoveries back to baseline. Medicare-insured patients had the steepest declines (55%), while those on Medicaid and government insurance had the lowest percentage of recovery to baseline (73% and 69%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides real-world evidence on the decline in urological care across demographic groups and practice settings, and demonstrates a differential impact on the utilization of urological health services by demographics and procedure type.

Impact of the COVID-19 Crisis on Same-day Discharge After Robotic Urologic Surgery.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the rate of same-day discharge (SDD) after robotic surgery METHODS: We reviewed our robotic surgeries during COVID-19 restrictions on surgery in Ohio between March 17 and June 5, 2020 and compared them with robotic procedures before COVID-19 and after restrictions were lifted. We followed our formerly described protocol in use since 2016 offering the option of SDD to all robotic urologic surgery patients, regardless of procedure type or patient-specific factors. RESULTS: During COVID-19 restrictions (COV), 89 robotic surgeries were performed and compared with 1667 of the same procedures performed previously (pre-COV) and 42 during the following month (post-COV). Among COV patients 98% (87/89 patients) opted for same-day discharge after surgery versus 52% in the historical pre-COV group (P < .00001). Post-COV, the higher rate of SDD was maintained at 98% (41/42 patients). There were no differences in 30-day complications or readmissions between SDD and overnight patients with only 2 COV (2%) and no post-COV 30-day readmissions. CONCLUSION: SDD after robotic surgery was safely applied during the COVID-19 crisis without increasing complications or readmissions. SDD may allow continuation of robotic surgery despite limited hospital beds and when minimizing hospital stay is important to protect postoperative patients from infection. Our experience suggests that patient attitude is a major factor in SDD after robotic surgery since the proportion of patients opting for SDD was much higher during COV and continued post-COV. Consideration of SDD long-term may be warranted for cost savings even in the absence of a crisis.

A Critical Appraisal of the American College of Surgeons Medically Necessary, Time Sensitive Procedures (MeNTS) Scoring System, Urology Consensus Recommendations and Individual Surgeon Case Prioritization for Resumption of Elective Urological Surgery During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

PURPOSE: Resumption of elective urology cases postponed due to the COVID-19 pandemic requires a systematic approach to case prioritization, which may be based on detailed cross-specialty questionnaires, specialty specific published expert opinion or by individual (operating) surgeon review. We evaluated whether each of these systems effectively stratifies cases and for agreement between approaches in order to inform departmental policy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We evaluated triage of elective cases postponed within our department due to the COVID-19 pandemic (March 9, 2020 to May 22, 2020) using questionnaire based surgical prioritization (American College of Surgeons Medically Necessary, Time Sensitive Procedures [MeNTS] instrument), consensus/expert opinion based surgical prioritization (based on published urological recommendations) and individual surgeon based surgical prioritization scoring (developed and managed within our department). Lower scores represented greater urgency. MeNTS scores were compared across consensus/expert opinion based surgical prioritization and individual surgeon based surgical prioritization scores. RESULTS: A total of 204 cases were evaluated. Median MeNTS score was 50 (IQR 44, 55), and mean consensus/expert opinion based surgical prioritization and individual surgeon based surgical prioritization scores were 2.6±0.6 and 2.2±0.8, respectively. Median MeNTS scores were 52 (46.5, 57.5), 50 (44.5, 54.5) and 48 (43.5, 54) for individual surgeon based surgical prioritization priority 1, 2 and 3 cases (p=0.129), and 55 (51.5, 57), 47.5 (42, 56) and 49 (44, 54) for consensus/expert opinion based surgical prioritization priority scores 1, 2, and 3 (p=0.002). There was none to slight agreement between consensus/expert opinion based surgical prioritization and individual surgeon based surgical prioritization scores (Kappa 0.131, p=0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Questionnaire based, expert opinion based and individual surgeon based approaches to case prioritization result in significantly different case prioritization. Questionnaire based surgical prioritization did not meaningfully stratify urological cases, and consensus/expert opinion based surgical prioritization and individual surgeon based surgical prioritization frequently disagreed. The strengths and weaknesses of each of these systems should be considered in future disaster planning scenarios.

Deferring Elective Urologic Surgery During the COVID-19 Pandemic: The Patients' Perspective.

OBJECTIVES: To explore the perspective of urological patients on the possibility to defer elective surgery due to the fear of contracting COVID-19. METHODS: All patients scheduled for elective urological procedures for malignant or benign diseases at 2 high-volume centers were administered a questionnaire, through structured telephone interviews, between April 24 and 27, 2020. The questionnaire included 3 questions: (1) In light of the COVID-19 pandemic, would you defer the planned surgical intervention? (2) If yes, when would you be willing to undergo surgery? (3) What do you consider potentially more harmful for your health: the risk of contracting COVID-19 during hospitalization or the potential consequences of delaying surgical treatment? RESULTS: Overall, 332 patients were included (51.5% and 48.5% in the oncology and benign groups, respectively). Of these, 47.9% patients would have deferred the planned intervention (33.3% vs 63.4%; P < .001), while the proportion of patients who would have preferred to delay surgery for more than 6 months was comparable between the groups (87% vs 80%). These answers were influenced by patient age and American Society of Anesthesiologists score (in the Oncology group) and by the underlying urological condition (in the benign group). Finally, 182 (54.8%) patients considered the risk of COVID-19 potentially more harmful than the risk of delaying surgery (37% vs 73%; P < .001). This answer was driven by patient age and the underlying disease in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings reinforce the importance of shared decision-making before urological surgery, leveraging patients' values and expectations to refine the paradigm of evidence-based medicine during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond.

Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Health-Related Quality of Life in Uro-oncologic Patients: What Should We Wait For?

PURPOSE: To investigate the health-related quality of life of uro-oncologic patients whose surgery was postponed without being rescheduled during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From the March 1 to April 26, 2020, major urologic surgeries were drastically reduced at our tertiary-care referral hospital. In order to evaluate health-related quality-of-life outcomes, the SF-36 questionnaire was sent to all patients scheduled for major surgery at our department 3 weeks after the cancellation of the planned surgical procedures because of the COVID-19 emergency. RESULTS: All patients included in the analysis had been awaiting surgery for a median (interquartile range) time of 52.85 (35-72) days. The SF-36 questionnaire measured 8 domains: physical functioning (PF), role limitations due to physical health (PH), role limitations due to emotional problems (RE), energy/fatigue (EF), emotional well-being (EWB), social functioning (SF), bodily pain (BP), general health perceptions (GHP). When considering physical characteristics as measured by the SF-36 questionnaire, PF was 91.5 (50-100) and PH was 82.75 (50-100) with a BP of 79.56 (45-90). For emotional and social aspects, RE was 36.83 (0-100) with a SF of 37.98 (12.5-90). Most patients reported loss of energy (EF 35.28 [15-55]) and increased anxiety (EWB 47.18 [interquartile range, 20-75]). All patients perceived a reduction of their health conditions, with GHP of 49.47 (15-85). Generally, 86% of patients (n = 43) noted an almost intact physical function but a significant emotional alteration characterized by a prevalence of anxiety and loss of energy. CONCLUSION: The lockdown due to the novel coronavirus that has affected most operating rooms in Italy could be responsible for the increased anxiety and decrement in health status of oncologic patients. Without any effective solution, we should expect a new medical catastrophe-one caused by the increased risk of tumor progression and mortality in uro-oncologic patients.

Iranian Urology Association Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Taskforce Pamphlet (IUA-CTP) Recommended Practice based on National Epidemiologic Analysis.

Since the emergence of Covid19 epidemics different guidelines and protocols have been published by Urology associations. Most of these recommendations have focused on the aptitude of any disease or condition for postponement. With the evolution of the outbreak, it is clear that postponement of procedures is not the policy we can rely on exclusively. We must know where do we stand? Where are we going in our country? How useful our recommendations have been for urology practitioners? We try to draw a clearer although-to some extent- conjectural picture and to adjust our protocols to this picture of outbreak evolution. Assuming that anything in this predicament is subject to unexpected changes. For these goals, we raise these arguments in three sections. First, where do we stand and where are we going? Explaining the present situation and best available statistics of the disease, the velocity the disease is spreading and our approximate predicted date its subsidence or partial remission. In a web form survey, we tried to evaluate that in the absence of a clear picture of outbreak progress in a specific area, how useful experts' points of view will be for the urologists working in non-referral centers especially in relevance to equivocal and challenging cases. Will there be any significant difference at all? In the third section, we try to give the plot to guide scheduling or postponing procedures in any given are according to the level of involvement. Here we considered both the characteristics of the special urology condition and also the situation and progress of the outbreak in that area.

Outreach and Influence of Surgical Societies' Recommendations on Minimally Invasive Surgery During the COVID-19 Pandemic-An Anonymized International Urologic Expert Inquiry.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the outreach and influence of the main recommendations of surgical governing bodies on adaptation of minimally invasive laparoscopic surgery (MIS) procedures during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in an anonymized multi-institutional survey. MATERIALS AND METHODS: International experts performing MIS were selected on the basis of the contact database of the speakers of the Friends of Israel Urology Symposium. A 24-item questionnaire was built using main recommendations of surgical societies. Total cases/1 Mio residents as well as absolute number of total cases were utilized as surrogates for the national disease burden. Statistics and plots were performed using RStudio v0.98.953. RESULTS: Sixty-two complete questionnaires from individual centers performing MIS were received. The study demonstrated that most centers were aware of and adapted their MIS management to the COVID-19 pandemic in accordance to surgical bodies' recommendations. Hospitals from the countries with a high disease burden put these adoptions more often into practice than the others particularly regarding swabs as well as CO2 insufflation and specimen extraction procedures. Twelve respondents reported on presumed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 transmission during MIS generating hypothesis for further research. CONCLUSION: Guidelines of surgical governing bodies on adaptation of MIS during the COVID-19 pandemic demonstrate significant outreach and implementation, whereas centers from the countries with a high disease burden are more often poised to modify their practice. Rapid publication and distribution of such recommendation is crucial during future epidemic threats.

Urologic oncology surgery during COVID-19: a rapid review of current triage guidance documents.

The Coronavirus Disease 2019 pandemic placed urologic surgeons, and especially urologic oncologists, in an unprecedented situation. Providers and healthcare systems were forced to rapidly create triage schemas in order to preserve resources and reduce potential viral transmission while continuing to provide care for patients. We reviewed United States and international triage proposals from professional societies, peer-reviewed publications, and publicly available institutional guidelines to identify common themes and critical differences. To date, there are varying levels of agreement on the optimal triaging of urologic oncology cases. As the need to preserve resources and prevent viral transmission grows, prioritizing only high priority surgical cases is paramount. A similar approach to prioritization will also be needed as nonemergent cases are allowed to proceed in the coming weeks. While these decisions will often be made on a case-by-case basis, more nuanced surgeon-driven consensus guidelines are needed for the near future.

Urologic Surgery and COVID-19: How the Pandemic Is Changing the Way We Operate.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has had a global impact on all aspects of health care, including surgical procedures. For urologists, it has affected and will continue to influence how we approach the care of patients preoperatively, intraoperatively, and postoperatively. A risk-benefit assessment of each patient undergoing surgery should be performed during the COVID-19 pandemic based on the urgency of the surgery and the risk of viral illness and transmission. Patients with advanced age and comorbidities have a higher incidence of mortality. Routine preoperative testing and symptom screening is recommended to identify those with COVID-19. Adequate personal protective equipment (PPE) for the surgical team is essential to protect health care workers and ensure an adequate workforce. For COVID-19 positive or suspected patients, the use of N95 respirators is recommended if available. The anesthesia method chosen should attempt to minimize aerosolization of the virus. Negative pressure rooms are strongly preferred for intubation/extubation and other aerosolizing procedures for COVID-19 positive patients or when COVID status is unknown. Although transmission has not yet been shown during laparoscopic and robotic procedures, efforts should be made to minimize the risk of aerosolization. Ultra-low particulate air filters are recommended for use during minimally invasive procedures to decrease the risk of viral transmission. Thorough cleaning and sterilization should be performed postoperatively with adequate time allowed for the operating room air to be cycled after procedures. COVID-19 patients should be separated from noninfected patients at all levels of care, including recovery, to decrease the risk of infection. Future directions will be guided by outcomes and infection rates as social distancing guidelines are relaxed and more surgical procedures are reintroduced. Recommendations should be adapted to the local environment and will continue to evolve as more data become available, the shortage of testing and PPE is resolved, and a vaccine and therapeutics for COVID-19 are developed.

Considerations in the Triage of Urologic Surgeries During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

We present a suggested list of urologic surgeries that should be prioritized if COVID-19 surges warrant cancellation of elective surgeries to free up health care resources. The recommendations should be tailored to locally available resources and situations and can be used as a framework for other specialties.