International Iohexol Shortage: Alternative Contrast Agents and Imaging Procedures for the Urologist.

INTRODUCTION: In April 2022, GE Healthcare announced a COVID-19-related interruption in iohexol manufacturing, leading to an international iodinated contrast shortage. The shortage greatly impacted urological practice, highlighting the value of alternative contrast agents and imaging/procedure alternatives. These alternatives are reviewed in this work. METHODS: A review of existing literature describing the use of alternative contrast agents, alternative imaging procedures, and contrast conservation strategies in urological care was performed using the PubMed database. The review was not performed systematically. RESULTS: Older iodinated contrast agents such as ioxaglate and diatrizoate can replace iohexol for intravascular imaging in patients without renal impairment. These agents, along with gadolinium-based agents such as Gadavist, have been used intraluminally for urological procedures and diagnostic imaging. Several lesser-known imaging and procedure alternatives are described and include air contrast pyelography, contrast-enhanced ultrasound, voiding urosonography, and low tube voltage CT urography. Conservation strategies include contrast dose reductions and use of contrast management devices for contrast vial splitting. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19-related iohexol shortage caused significant hardship for urological care internationally, leading to delayed contrasted imaging studies and urological procedures. Alternative contrast agents, imaging/procedure alternatives, and conservation strategies are reviewed in this work with the goal of equipping the urologist to mitigate the current iodinated contrast shortage and to prepare in the event of a future shortage.

Understanding the Urology Program Directors Perspective on the Current Resident Selection Process: The Society of Academic Urologists National Survey of Urology Program Directors.

OBJECTIVE: The traditional residency selection process was altered dramatically by the SARS CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic. For the 2020-2021 application cycle in-person interviews were transitioned to the virtual format. What was thought to be a temporary transition has now become the new standard with continued endorsement from the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) and the Society of Academic Urologists (SAU) for virtual interviews (VI). We sought to assess the perceived efficacy and satisfaction of the VI format from the urology residency program director's (PDs) perspective. DESIGN: A designated SAU Taskforce on "Optimizing the Applicant Experience in the Virtual Interview Era" developed and refined a survey composed of 69 questions on VI and was distributed to all urology program directors (PD) of member institutions of the SAU. The survey focused on candidate selection, faculty preparation, and interview day logistics. PDs were also asked to reflect on the impact of VI on their match results, recruitment of underrepresented minorities and female gender, and what their preference would be for future applications cycles. PARTICIPANTS: Urology residency PDs (84.7% response rate) between January 13, 2022 - February 10, 2022 were included in the study. RESULTS: Most programs interviewed a total of 36 to 50 applicants (80%), with an average of 10 to 20 applicants per interview day. The top 3 ranked criteria for interview selection reported by urology PDs surveyed included letters of recommendation, clerkship grades, and USMLE Step 1 score. The most common areas of formal training for faculty interviewers were diversity, equity and inclusion (55%), implicit bias (66%), and review of the SAU guidelines on illegal questions (83%). Over half (61.4%) of PDs believed that they were able to accurately represent their training program through the virtual platform, while 51% felt that VI did not afford similar assessments of applicant as in-person interviews. Two-thirds of PDs believed the VI platform improve access for all applicants to attend interviews. Focusing on the impact of the VI platform for recruitment of underrepresented minorities (URM) and female gender applicants, 15% and 24% reported improved visibility respectively for their program, and 24% and 11% reported increased ability to interview URM and female gender applicants respectively. Overall, in-person interviews were reported to be preferred by 42%, and 51% of PDs desired VIs to be included in future years. CONCLUSIONS: PDs opinion and role of the VIs into the future is variable. Despite uniform agreement of cost savings and belief that VI platform improves access for all, only half of PDs expressed interest of the VI format being continued in some form. PDs note limitation of VI in the ability to comprehensively assess applicants as well as the in-person format. Many programs have begun to incorporate vital training in the areas of diversity equity and inclusion bias, and illegal questions. There is a role for continued development and research on ways to optimize virtual interviews.

Burnout: A Call to Action From the AUA Workforce Workgroup.

PURPOSE: We hypothesize burnout has failed to improve and certain demographics may be disproportionately affected. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The AUA Workforce Workgroup examined work from the annual AUA Census over the past several years. Particular to this study, relevant burnout-related data were examined from the past 5 years. RESULTS: In 2021, 36.7% of urologists reported burnout compared to 36.2% in 2016. Burnout in men decreased from 36.3% to 35.2%, but increased in women from 35.3% to 49.2%. When examined by age, the largest increases in burnout were seen in those <45 years old, increasing from 37.9% to 44.8%, followed by 45-54 years old, increasing from 43.4% to 44.6%. When asked about the effect of COVID-19 on burnout, 54% of urologists didn't feel COVID-19 impacted burnout. Beyond burnout, only 25.0% of men and 4.6% of women reported no conflict between work and personal responsibilities, while 25.7% of men and 44.7% of women resolved these conflicts in favor of work or were unable to resolve them. Of respondents, 22.5% of men and 37.1% of women were "dissatisfied" with work-life balance. Similarly, 33.6% of men reported their work schedule does not leave enough time for personal/family life, compared to 57.5% of women. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, urologists have higher burnout now when compared to 2016. The gender discrepancy has vastly widened with women experiencing burnout at an increased rate of 14% compared to 2016, while burnout in men decreased by 1%. Burnout has increased the most in those <45 years old. Further action is needed to substantiate the causes of burnout.

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.

Lessons learned after one year of COVID-19 from a urologist and radiotherapist view: A German survey on prostate cancer diagnosis and treatment.

INTRODUCTION: Since the beginning of the pandemic in 2020, COVID-19 has changed the medical landscape. International recommendations for localized prostate cancer (PCa) include deferred treatment and adjusted therapeutic routines. MATERIALS AND METHODS: To longitudinally evaluate changes in PCa treatment strategies in urological and radiotherapy departments in Germany, a link to a survey was sent to 134 institutions covering two representative baseline weeks prior to the pandemic and 13 weeks from March 2020 to February 2021. The questionnaire captured the numbers of radical prostatectomies, prostate biopsies and case numbers for conventional and hypofractionation radiotherapy. The results were evaluated using descriptive analyses. RESULTS: A total of 35% of the questionnaires were completed. PCa therapy increased by 6% in 2020 compared to 2019. At baseline, a total of 69 radiotherapy series and 164 radical prostatectomies (RPs) were documented. The decrease to 60% during the first wave of COVID-19 particularly affected low-risk PCa. The recovery throughout the summer months was followed by a renewed reduction to 58% at the end of 2020. After a gradual decline to 61% until July 2020, the number of prostate biopsies remained stable (89% to 98%) during the second wave. The use of RP fluctuated after an initial decrease without apparent prioritization of risk groups. Conventional fractionation was used in 66% of patients, followed by moderate hypofractionation (30%) and ultrahypofractionation (4%). One limitation was a potential selection bias of the selected weeks and the low response rate. CONCLUSION: While the diagnosis and therapy of PCa were affected in both waves of the pandemic, the interim increase between the peaks led to a higher total number of patients in 2020 than in 2019. Recommendations regarding prioritization and fractionation routines were implemented heterogeneously, leaving unexplored potential for future pandemic challenges.

A Canadian national survey: Perspectives on routine pathological examination of hernia sacs after inguinal hernia and hydrocele repair among pediatric urologists, surgeons, and pathologists.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: This study aims to understand perspectives on routine pathological examination of hernia sacs following pediatric inguinal hernia and hydrocele repair among Canadian pediatric urologists, surgeons, and pathologists. STUDY DESIGN: All active members of Pediatric Urologists of Canada (PUC), Canadian Association of Pediatric Surgeons (CAPS), and the divisional heads of anatomical pathology at the Canadian children's hospitals (AP) were invited to participate between June 2019 and January 2021 in an anonymous multiple-choice-based questionnaire. RESULTS: The response rates were 71% from PUC (24/34), 20% from CAPS (25/130), and 64% from AP (7/11). The majority of the surgeons (PUC:54%, CAPS:68%) did not routinely send hernia sacs for pathological examination after inguinal hernia repair. Most felt there was a little value in such examination (PUC:96%, CAPS:72%). Among those who submit hernia sacs, the majority did not receive reports that were clinically significant impacting patient management (PUC:82%, CAPS:50%). On the other hand, the pathologists had mixed opinion on the value of examining hernia sacs. Most of them only did gross examination (86%), unless requested by surgeons or concerning features were noted on gross examination. The majority have found clinically meaningful abnormal findings (71%), including vas deferens and portions of the spermatic cord. DISCUSSION: Currently, there are no evidence-based clinical guidelines on pathological assessment of hernia sacs after pediatric inguinal hernia and hydrocele repair. Instead of making it mandatory, future guidelines should highlight specimens that should be submitted for further investigations (e.g., challenging cases where inadvertent surgical injuries might have occurred). Future studies should also address whether patients who may be at higher risk of having clinically significant pathology can be identified pre- or perioperatively to more efficiently triage specimens that would benefit from pathological examination. Limitation of the study includes low response rate from the CAPS members during the COVID-19 pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: While most of the pediatric urologists and surgeons felt there is a little value of pathological examination of hernia sacs following inguinal hernia and hydrocele repair, half of the anatomical pathologists felt there is value. Future studies should aim to establish evidence-based clinical guidelines taking stakeholders perspectives into consideration.

Systematic review of telemedicine in pediatric urology.

INTRODUCTION: Telemedicine has bridged the distance gap between patients and pediatric urologists for over a decade, yet many pediatric urologists have not embraced it as a major part of their practice. The purpose of this systematic review is to evaluate and clarify the optimal role of telemedicine in pediatric urology, as well as the benefits, barriers, risks, and other important considerations that must be accounted for in its optimal adoption. METHODS: Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, this systematic review utilized Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) to search PubMed through April 29, 2021 as follows: (Humans [MeSH]) AND ((Child [MeSH]) OR (Infant [MeSH])) AND ((Remote Consultation [MAJR]) OR (Telemedicine [MAJR]) OR (Videoconferencing [MAJR]) OR (Health Services Accessibility [MAJR])) AND ((Urology [MAJR]) OR (Postoperative Care [MAJR]) OR (Urologic Surgical Procedures [MAJR])). 73 resulting articles, plus 21 from manual searches (e.g. papers too recent to have MeSH terms), were screened. 17 met inclusion criteria by discussing telemedicine in context of pediatric urology in a full manuscript. Non-complete manuscripts and papers not specifically considering pediatric urology, or in which telemedicine was not a major focus, were excluded. RESULTS: 17 papers met inclusion criteria. Varied approaches to the topic included surveys, controlled studies, retrospective studies, and descriptive opinion pieces. Quality of evidence varied, representing at least 1851 virtual encounters, 409 in-person encounters, and 68 clinician opinions. Four papers included a comparison or control group, and none utilized randomization. All 17 papers support expanded application of telemedicine in pediatric urology with varied evidence that telemedicine improves patient access to pediatric urologic care, satisfies both patient families and clinicians, is safe, provides equivalent outcomes, and is practicable. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of telemedicine in pediatric urology should be expanded as it can practicably and safely improve patient access to pediatric urologic care, satisfy both patient families and clinicians, and maintain outcomes.

Adopting Telehealth During The COVID-19 Era: The Urologist's Perspective.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the urology providers' (through a range of training levels) experience utilizing telemedicine given the rapid nationwide implementation of telemedicine in urology practices due to COVID-19. Several studies focusing on the patient's perspective have illustrated that telemedicine is comparable to traditional office visits in terms of cost, communication, and overall satisfaction. However, there is sparse data on the provider's experience. METHODS: With IRB approval, we assessed provider satisfaction with telemedicine at Urology programs in the U.S. through an electronic survey. The 25-question survey was based on the Patient Assessment of Communication of Telehealth which is a validated 33 question instrument that has been utilized to assess the quality of patient-provider communication in telemedicine. Experience with telemedicine was assessed in 2 categories: technical aspects and communication with patients. Variables were rated using a 5-point Likert Scale. RESULTS: There were 144 responses to the survey. 50% of providers reported not receiving any formal training in using telemedicine. This differed significantly by training level with 55% of attendings having had received training vs 20% of residents. Providers felt they would most benefit from training in billing (52%) rather than equipment use (33%) or communication (28%). 87% of providers felt comfortable discussing sensitive topics while only 55% felt comfortable using telehealth to schedule surgery (P < .001). CONCLUSION: Urology providers are generally satisfied with their experience communicating with patients via telemedicine and the majority would opt to continue utilizing telemedicine. Nevertheless, many providers are hesitant to schedule surgery via telemedicine. Providers would benefit from formal training in telemedicine.

Mapping Telemedicine in German Private Practice Urological Care: Implications for Transitioning beyond the COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: There are limited data on the use and concern of telemedicine among German urologists, and thus, there are no established guidelines for telemedical diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of urological indications. METHODS: An anonymized survey was conducted among German private practice urologists during the 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. The χ2 test, Mann-Whitney U-test, and Kruskal-Wallis test were used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: 257 urologists were included in the final analysis. Thirty-five (14.0%) of urologists had used telemedicine as part of their consultation, and 221 (86.0%) had not used telemedicine. There was no difference between telemedicine adoption rates between rural and urban settings. Telemedicine users were significantly more satisfied with the information they had received regarding telemedicine issues. Users saw the greatest barrier to telemedicine that patients do not take up the offer of telemedicine. Nonusers were most concerned with unclear indications for telemedicine followed by lesser reimbursements during telemedicine than in-person visitations. Users were significantly more likely to use telemedicine beyond the COVID-19 pandemic. Urologists, who wanted to use the service in the future, wanted an active support by the German society of urology and guidelines for telemedicine. Last, users and nonusers preferred telemedicine for non-acute chronic diseases and follow-up visitations. CONCLUSION: Despite the COVID-19 pandemic, telemedicine remains a rarely used service among German private practice urologists. Ultimately, to overcome the current challenges, urologists require an active support for the service through the German Society of Urology and telemedical guidelines.

COVID-19 and research in pediatric urology.

COVID-19 began in December 2019 then spread worldwide. Providers, including pediatric urologists, had to adapt their clinical processes, and many non-covid research activities were suspended. COVID-19 impacts how research is financed, performed, and published, and is itself the subject of intense research. We present current research and publications specifically related to the urinary tract and the pediatric population.

Urological activity at the time of COVID-19 pandemic: is there any difference between public and private field?

INTRODUCTION: as COVID-19 pandemic is rapidly evolving, there is a whole reorganization in hospitals to concentrate more resources to face the crisis. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 disease on urological activity in Tunisia. To assess the differences in the management of urological conditions between the private and the public field. METHODS: a survey was addressed to all certified urologists working in Tunisia in both the public and private sectors (n=194) using the national database of active urologists available and updated. We either called them or looked them up through email or social media. The form was open from March the 28th to April the 3rd. Results were obtained via spreadsheet and analysed using SPSS 23.0. RESULTS: one hundred and twenty urologists have filled in the form. Consultations at the outpatient office were restricted to urgent cases in 66% (n=79). Telemedicine was more used by urologists in private than in public fields p=0.03. Urologists in private sector followed more the sterilization protocol of the hospital/clinic and used more disposable materials whenever possible p=0.011. Elective surgical activity has completely stopped in 85% of the responders (n=102). Elective surgery requiring transfusion or intensive care unit was performed in 38% (n=46) and 26% (n=31) if there was a risk of disease progression. Benign Prostate Hyperplasia (BPH) surgery was more performed as usual in private sector than in public sector p=0.012. It was the only condition managed differently between both sectors. CONCLUSION: the drop of the urological activity is essential in order to give relevant stakeholders room to act efficiently against the spread of the virus. The context of the pandemic and the hospital´s condition must be taken into consideration without compromising the patient´s outcome.

Workforce Issues in Urology.

The future supply of urologists is not on pace to account for future demands of urologic care. This impending urologic shortage sits on a backdrop of multiple other workforce issues. In this review, we take an in-depth look at several pressing issues facing the urologic workforce, including the impending urology shortage, gender and diversity concerns, growing levels of burnout, and the effects of the coronavirus pandemic. In doing so, we highlight specific areas of clinical practice that may need to be addressed from a health care policy standpoint.