Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on diagnosis and surgical management of common urological conditions: results from multi-institutional database analysis from the United States.

OBJECTIVE: To determine real life impact during the first pandemic year on diagnosis and surgical management of common urological diseases and 90-day postoperative mortality following common urological surgeries. METHODS: Cross-sectional study from 2016 to 2021. We used TriNetX to obtain the data. Patients with a diagnosis of six common non-oncologic and five oncologic urologic conditions were included. Twenty-four surgical interventions were also analyzed. The total number of diagnosis and surgical procedures were compared yearly from 2016 to 2021 and Chi-square test was used for statistical analysis. Additionally, monthly changes were evaluated during the first pandemic year and a z score period time was reported. The 90-day post-operative mortality rates during the first pandemic year were compared to the preceding year. RESULTS: Overall, a decrease in diagnosis and surgeries were observed during the first pandemic year, with maximum drop in April 2020. Among non-oncological conditions, the decrease in diagnosis of enlarged prostate (5.3%), nephrolithiasis (9.4%), urinary incontinence (18.7%), and evaluation for male sterilization (14.8%) reached statistical significance (P < 0.05 in all). Prostate cancer was the only cancer whose diagnosis showed statistically significant decrease (6.2%, P < 0.05). The surgical case load for benign conditions showed higher reduction (13.1-25%) than for malignant conditions (5.9-16.3%). There was no change in 90-day post-operative mortality in any of the analyzed surgeries. CONCLUSIONS: Our study showed that although healthcare delivery decreased in the first pandemic year, causing a decline in the diagnosis and surgical treatment of several diseases, surgical interventions did not increase the risk of death.

COVID-19 vaccination not associated with increased risk of erectile dysfunction.

Although mRNA COVID-19 vaccines have proven to be safe and effective against SARS-CoV-2, vaccination rates have slowed, with some individuals citing impotence as a concern. Therefore, we conducted a survey of the US males to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 vaccination on erectile function. We hypothesized that vaccinated men would not have a higher risk of ED compared to unvaccinated men. Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk) was utilized to survey the US adult male population between August 26 and September 2, 2021. Survey participation was open to 1000 males over the age of 18 and currently living in the United States regardless of vaccination status or the past medical history of COVID-19. Selection criteria included respondents ≥45 years old, no history of physician-diagnosed ED, biologically born, and identify as male. Participants completed an anonymous 16-question survey that included a multidimensional scale used to evaluate ED, the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5). Among vaccinated men, the median IIEF-5 score was 20 [16-24] compared to 22 [17.5-25] in the unvaccinated group (p = 0.195). The multivariable-adjusted analysis demonstrated that vaccination against COVID-19 was not associated with increased risk of ED. Overall, this cross-sectional survey showed that COVID-19 vaccination was not associated with an increased risk of erectile dysfunction in males 45 years and older.

Long-term evaluation of sperm parameters after coronavirus disease 2019 messenger ribonucleic acid vaccination.

Objective: To determine whether the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines can negatively impact the semen parameters of young healthy men in the long-term. Design: We conducted semen analyses on 12 men before, 3 and 9 months after achieving fully vaccinated status. Individuals who admitted a history of infertility or previous azoospermia were excluded from study participation. Subjects: Healthy male volunteers between the ages of 18-50 years old were recruited between September 2021 - March 2022. Main Outcome Measures: Semen analyses were performed and evaluated volume, sperm concentration, total motility, and total motile sperm count (TMSC). The primary outcome was median change in the TMSC at baseline, 3 months, and at least 9 months following vaccination. Results: A total of 12 men volunteered in our study (median age 26 [25 - 30] years). Subjects provided follow-up semen samples at a median of 10 months following the second vaccine dose. There were no significant changes in any semen parameters between baseline, 3 months, and 10 months following vaccination. Baseline samples demonstrated median sperm concentrations and TMSC of 29.5 million/cc [9.3 - 49] and 31 million [4-51.3], respectively. At 9-month follow-up, sperm concentration and TMSC were 43 [20.5 - 63.5] (P=.351) and 37.5 [8.5 - 117.8] (P=.519), respectively. Of note, there were no significant changes in semen volume nor total motility (%) for participants at follow-up. Conclusion: COVID-19 mRNA vaccines and the booster dose does not appear to negatively impact the semen parameters of healthy males up to 10 months following vaccination.

Patient Satisfaction With Telemedicine Appointments in an Academic Andrology-focused Urology Practice During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate patient satisfaction with telemedicine appointments as an alternative to in-person appointments at an Andrology-focused academic urology practice during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. METHODS: Between March and June 2020, all appointments at the practice of a single Andrology-focused academic urologist were conducted by telephone. Consecutive patients were contacted by telephone following their appointment to complete a telephone questionnaire. Baseline demographic information was obtained, and perceptions regarding telephone appointments were assessed using a Likert scale. RESULTS: Ninety-six patients completed the telephone questionnaire. Median age was 48.5 years (interquartile range 37.3-62.8 years) with 55 of 96 (57.3%) of the appointments Andrology-focused. Mean distance of residence from the hospital was 8.4 km (interquartile range 4.7-25.2 km). Only 9 of 96 (9.3%) of the patients felt that the telephone format did not adequately address their needs. However, 26 of 96 (27.1%) of patients said they would prefer an in-person appointment. On multivariable analysis adjusting for age, gender, presenting complaint, type of appointment, education level, and employment status, no factors were associated with feeling that the telephone appointment adequately addressed needs or preference for an in-person appointment in the future. CONCLUSION: Patients were generally satisfied with telephone appointments as an alternative to in-person appointments during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Nonetheless, a substantial portion of patients said they would prefer in-person appointments in the future.