The outcomes of same-day discharge following holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) surgeries: our experience during the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the outcomes of Same-Day Discharge (SDD) following Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate (HoLEP) in patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: A retrospective review of HoLEP surgeries at a single institution between January 2021 and March 2022 was performed. Patient demographic and operative data were collected, and postoperative outcomes were evaluated in terms of safety and efficacy and compared in both groups using a t-test and chi-square test. Logistic regression was also performed to identify factors that correlate with the failure of SDD. RESULTS: A total of 155 patients were identified; 135 patients were successfully discharged on the same day and 20 were admitted (87% SDD rate). Admitted HoLEP patients had a significantly higher median prostate-specific antigen (5.7 vs 3.9 ng/dL, P < 0.001), prostate volume (152.3 vs 100.6 mL, P < 0.001), and enucleated tissue weight (90.3 vs 56.9 g, P = 0.04) compared to the SDD group. The SDD group had a 2.9% (n = 4) readmission rate and a 5.2% (n = 7) Emergency Department (ED) visit rate. There was no significant difference in the rate of postoperative ED visits (P = 0.64), readmissions (P = 0.98), complications, and catheterization time (P = 0.98) between both groups. Preoperative predictors of SDD failure included prostate gland volume > 150 mL (OR = 7.17; CI 2.01-25.67; P < 0.01) and history of antiplatelet/anticoagulation use (OR = 6.59; CI 2.00-21.67; P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Same-day discharge following HoLEP is a safe and effective approach that can be performed in most patients using a liberal discharge criteria and relying on postoperative findings only.

Impact and Implications of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Urological Training.

INTRODUCTION: COVID-19 has forever impacted health care in the U.S. Changes to health and hospital policies led to disruptions to both patient care and medical training. There is limited understanding of the impact on urology resident training across the U.S. Our aim was to examine trends in urological procedures, as captured by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education resident case logs, throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Retrospective review of publicly available urology resident case logs between July 2015 and June 2021 was performed. Average case numbers were analyzed via linear regression with different models specifying different assumptions regarding the impact of COVID-19 on procedure in 2020 and onward. Statistical calculations utilized R (version 4.0.2). RESULTS: Analysis favored models which assumed the impact of COVID-related disruptions were specific to 2019-2020. Analysis of procedures performed indicate an average upward trend of urology cases nationally. An average annual increase of 26 procedures between 2016 and 2021 was noted, except for 2020 which saw an average drop of approximately 67 cases. However, in 2021 case volume dramatically increased to the same rate as projected had there not been a disruption in 2020. Stratifying by category of urology procedure revealed evidence for variability between categories in the magnitude of the 2020 decrease. CONCLUSIONS: Despite widespread pandemic-related disruptions in surgical care, urological volume has rebounded and increased, likely having minimal detriment to urological training over time. Urological care is essential and in high demand as evidenced by the uptick in volume across the U.S.