Application of the ERAS guidelines in pediatric urological surgery: a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Consensus for Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) in pediatrics has been achieved in neonatal intestinal surgery, yet it is not widely utilized in pediatric urology. We investigated the application of ERAS guidelines in pediatric urology, and determined its effects given the available level of evidence supporting the ERAS protocol in children. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A systematic literature review including series providing adoption of fast-track recovery protocols for pediatric urology procedures was carried out. Main outcome measures were study characteristics, adherence to the 19 ERAS items, complication rates and length of hospital stay. Sub-group analysis by surgery type (hypospadias versus major surgery) was performed. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Nine series with data from 1272 surgical pediatric cases were included. An enhanced recovery pathway was applied in 67.3% of the reports. Two series included patients undergoing hypospadias repair and ERAS items were insufficiently reported. Studies including children undergoing major procedures mentioned a median of 15 ERAS items, yet applied a median of 11 items. Median compliance rate was 88.9% (range 50-100). More ERAS guideline items were reported (applied or mentioned) in the most recently published studies. CONCLUSIONS: There is limited reporting and use of the ERAS guidelines in urologic surgery particularly in hypospadias repair; whilst in major surgery in children, adherence and compliance rates vary widely. In more recent series there was an increase in ERAS items that have been mentioned and applied. Future research is needed to identify barriers and to overcome them in order to fully adopt and benefit from the ERAS pathway.

Gap analysis between trainees' subjective competencies and the competencies expected by instructors in urology: A need assessment survey in Japan.

OBJECTIVE: According to the rapid progress in surgical techniques, a growing number of procedures should be learned during postgraduate training periods. This study aimed to clarify the current situation regarding urological surgical training and identify the perception gap between trainees' competency and the competency expected by instructors in Japan. METHODS: Regarding the 40 urological surgical procedures selected via the Delphi method, we collected data on previous caseloads, current subjective autonomy, and confidence for future skill acquisition from trainees (<15 post-graduate years [PGY]), and the competencies when trainees became attending doctors expected by instructors (>15 PGY), according to a 5-point Likert scale. In total, 174 urologists in Hokkaido Prefecture, Japan were enrolled in this study. RESULTS: The response rate was 96% (165/174). In a large proportion of the procedures, caseloads grew with accumulation of years of clinical practice. However, trainees had limited caseloads of robotic and reconstructive surgeries even after 15 PGY. Trainees showed low subjective competencies at present and low confidence for future skill acquisition in several procedures, such as open cystectomy, ureteroureterostomy, and ureterocystostomy, while instructors expected trainees to be able to perform these procedures independently when they became attending doctors. CONCLUSION: Trainees showed low subjective competencies and low confidence for future skill acquisition in several open and reconstructive procedures, while instructors considered that these procedures should be independently performable by attending doctors. We believe that knowledge of these perception gaps is helpful to develop a practical training program.

Outcomes of EAU-endorsed Live Surgical Events over a 5-year Period (2015-2020) and Updated Guidelines from the EAU Live Surgery Committee.

CONTEXT: Live surgery events (LSEs) have been used in all surgical fields for education and training and to demonstrate new techniques. The European Association of Urology (EAU) live surgery guidelines were established in 2014. OBJECTIVE: To review the compliance of outcomes for procedures performed at EAU-affiliated LSEs with the 2014 guidelines and to establish updated guidelines for LSEs and semi-LSEs. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Patients from EAU-affiliated LSEs were included for all surgical procedures carried out between January 2015 and January 2020. All these events were pre-evaluated by the EAU Live Surgery Committee and met the criteria for an EAU LSE, with outcomes recorded and submitted to the registry. Data were collected for the type of procedure and for intraoperative and short- and long-term complications. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: A total of 246 procedures were performed across 18 LSEs, with an annual volume ranging from 19 to 74 procedures. These included 109 (44.3%) robot-assisted procedures, 21 (8.5%) laparoscopic procedures, 10 (4%) transurethral bladder procedures, 11 (4.4%) prostate enucleation procedures, 72 (29.2%) endourological procedures, and 23 (9.3%) andrology or reconstruction procedures. A total of 77 different surgical techniques and variations for 55 different types of surgery were performed as LSEs over the past 5 yr. There were 44 (17.8%) short-term complications and 11.3% (nine/79) long-term complications observed, with Clavien grade III/IV complications seen in 5.2% and 7.5% of cases over short- and long-term follow-up, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The 5-yr outcomes for EAU LSEs show that they are safe and follow previous guidelines set by the panel. It seems likely that the fine balance between patient safety and educational value might be best achieved if LSEs are performed by local surgeons in their parent hospital with patients and staff they know, and that technological advances will make live streaming a seamless process. The current EAU Live Surgery Committee has updated the guidelines on LSEs and provided new guidelines for semi-live events. PATIENT SUMMARY: We reviewed 5-year outcomes for live surgery events endorsed by the European Association of Urology. We found that the operations carried out at these events were safe and followed the guidelines previously set. We have updated the guidelines and provided new guidelines for semi-live events.

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.

Hypospadias surgery on YouTube: is it valid?

BACKGROUND: This study aims to evaluate video clips of hypospadias surgery on YouTube and to assess their competence for basic steps of hypospadias surgery. METHODS: The YouTube was screened for videos of hypospadias surgery between 1 December 2018 and 20 December 2018. Videos were divided into three groups based on the subjective utility checklist scores as follows: highly compatible (group 1; ≥7 points), moderately compatible (Group 2; 5-6 points), and less compatible (group 3; ≤4 points). Groups were compared statistically. RESULTS: A total of 100 videos were included in this study. The mean total score was 4.48±1.97. There were 15 (15%) videos in group 1, 42 (42%) in group 2, and 43 (43%) in group 3. There was a statistically significant difference in the total score, duration of videos, and like/dislike ratios among the groups (P<0.001, for all). There was a strong and significant correlation between the total scores and the step of glanuloplasty and skin closure (r: 0.805, P<0.001 and r: 0.770, P<0.001, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Our study results suggest that the educational content of the videos of hypospadias surgery on YouTube is unsatisfactory. We believe that such videos must contain information regarding the surgical steps of glanuloplasty, skin closure, flap transposition, and urethroplasty and detailed information about the suture materials.

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.

Robotic Surgery Training: Current Trends and Future Directions.

The use of robotic surgery in urology has grown exponentially in the past 2 decades, but robotic surgery training has lagged behind. Most graduating residents report a lack of comfort independently performing common robotic urologic surgeries, despite an abundance of available resources. There is a general consensus on the key components of a comprehensive robotics curriculum, and well-validated tools have been developed to assess trainee competency. However, no single curriculum has emerged as the gold standard on which individual programs can build their own robotics curricula.

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.

Global Assessment of Urological Endoscopic Skills (GAUES): development and validation of a novel assessment tool to evaluate endourological skills.

OBJECTIVE: To develop and evaluate an assessment tool for endourological skills during simulation including cystoscopy, ureteroscopy (URS) and transurethral resection (TUR) procedures. METHODS: We designed a Global Assessment of Urological Endoscopic Skills (GAUES) tool, comprised of nine endourology task-specific and two global-rating skills items. The tool was developed through two rounds of the Delphi process. The GAUES tool was used to assess acquisition of URS and TUR skills of novices (Year 2 core surgical trainees, CT2) and intermediate level trainees (residents at the start of the UK higher surgical training programme in Urology, Speciality Trainee Year 3, ST3) at the Urology Simulation Boot Camp (USBC) between 2016 and 2018. Validity was evaluated by comparing scores between trainees with different levels of urological experience. Inter-rater reliability was also assessed. RESULTS: We evaluated 130 residents, 52% of trainees were at an intermediate stage of training and 39% were novices. In all, 9% of the anonymous forms were missing demographics. The completion rate of the GAUES tool during the USBC for URS and TUR was 85% and 89%, respectively. Our analysis demonstrated a significant difference in all domains between intermediates and novices at assessment in URS, except for one domain more suited to clinical assessment (P = 0.226). There was excellent intraclass correlation (ICC) overall between the two experts' judgements, ICC = 0.841 (95% confidence interval 0.767-0.893; P < 0.001, n = 88). CONCLUSIONS: We have developed the novel GAUES tool for cystoscopic, URS and TUR skills. Overall, we demonstrated good face, content and construct validity and excellent reliability, suggesting that the GAUES tool can be useful for endourological skills assessment.

Machine learning in the optimization of robotics in the operative field.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The increasing use of robotics in urologic surgery facilitates collection of 'big data'. Machine learning enables computers to infer patterns from large datasets. This review aims to highlight recent findings and applications of machine learning in robotic-assisted urologic surgery. RECENT FINDINGS: Machine learning has been used in surgical performance assessment and skill training, surgical candidate selection, and autonomous surgery. Autonomous segmentation and classification of surgical data have been explored, which serves as the stepping-stone for providing real-time surgical assessment and ultimately, improve surgical safety and quality. Predictive machine learning models have been created to guide appropriate surgical candidate selection, whereas intraoperative machine learning algorithms have been designed to provide 3-D augmented reality and real-time surgical margin checks. Reinforcement-learning strategies have been utilized in autonomous robotic surgery, and the combination of expert demonstrations and trial-and-error learning by the robot itself is a promising approach towards autonomy. SUMMARY: Robot-assisted urologic surgery coupled with machine learning is a burgeoning area of study that demonstrates exciting potential. However, further validation and clinical trials are required to ensure the safety and efficacy of incorporating machine learning into surgical practice.

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.

Best Practices in Robotic-assisted Repair of Vesicovaginal Fistula: A Consensus Report from the European Association of Urology Robotic Urology Section Scientific Working Group for Reconstructive Urology.

CONTEXT: Surgical repair of a vesicovaginal fistula (VVF) has been described extensively in the literature for several decades. Advances in robotic repair have been adopted since 2005. OBJECTIVE: A consensus review of existing data based on published case series, expert opinion, and a survey monkey. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: This document summarizes the consensus group meeting and survey monkey results convened by the European Association of Urology Robotic Urology Section (ERUS) relating to the robotic management of VVF. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Current data underline the successful robotic repair of supratrigonal nonobstetric VVF. The panel recommends preoperative marking of the fistula by a guidewire or ureteral catheter, and placement of a protective ureteral JJ stent. An extravesical robotic approach usually provides a good anatomic view for adequate and wide dissection of the vesicovaginal space, as well as bladder and vaginal mobilization. Careful sharp dissection of fistula edges should be performed. Tension-free closure of the bladder is of utmost importance. Tissue interposition seems to be beneficial. The success rate of published series often reaches near 100%. An indwelling bladder catheter should be placed for about 10 d postoperatively. CONCLUSIONS: When considering robotic repair for VVF, it is essential to establish the size, number, location, and etiology of the VVF. Robotic assistance facilitates dissection of the vesicovaginal space, harvesting of a well-vascularized tissue flap, and a tension-free closure of the bladder with low morbidity for the patient being operated in the deep pelvis with delicate anatomical structures. PATIENT SUMMARY: Robotic repair of a vesicovaginal fistula can be applied safely with an excellent success rate and very low morbidity. This confirms the use of robotic surgery for vesicovaginal fistula repair, which is recommended in a consensus by the European Association of Urology Robotic Section Scientific Working Group for reconstructive urology.

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.

Urological implications of SARS CoV-19.

INTRODUCTION: The novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), pandemic has afflicted > 3.3 million people around the world since December 2019. Though, more than 1000 publications have appeared in scientific journals addressing a plethora of questions, there is a considerable hiatus in understanding of the behavior and natural history of the virus and its impact on urology. Also, a modified approach is the need of hour in taking care of patients as urologists should safeguard their teams, families, and patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The authors have used guidelines from USA, Canada, UK, Europe and India for making recommendations to help urologist define their own policies that may have to be fine-tuned on the basis of continued and evolving challenges they would encounter and the local resources at their disposal. RESULTS: COVID-19 do effect genitourinary system from kidney to testis. The authors provide scientific basis to urologists to help identify patients by remote consultation who are likely to be harmed by coming to the hospital, and not to miss those who need hospitalization for diagnostic or therapeutic interventions. There is uncompromised need of specific precautions during surgery to safe guard the surgeon and his team along with the patient. CONCLUSIONS: Urological operations during COVID-19 pandemic should be limited to emergency cases during the acute phase with an exit strategy planned in a staggered manner, based on the scientific risk stratification. Telemedicine (e-clinics or virtual clinics) would help achieve the goal of risk stratification.

RUC Operative Time Estimates are Inaccurate, Resulting in Decreased Work RVU Assignments for Longer Urologic Procedures.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether inaccurate operative time estimates utilized by the Relative Value Update Committee (RUC) contribute to the undervaluation of longer urologic procedures. METHODS: The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) data sets were reviewed from 2015 to 2017. NSQIP operative time is directly measured, contrasting with CMS times which are determined by the RUC via survey-generated estimates. The 50 most frequently coded urology current procedural terminologies were included. Operative time difference was compared between the 2 data sets, and Spearman's correlation coefficient was utilized to assess differences in wRVU/h. RESULTS: A total of 105,931 cases were included. Overall, RUC operative time estimates were longer than NSQIP (124.4 vs 103.5 minutes, P < .001). RUC data overestimated operative time by 42.9% for procedures ≤90 minutes and 16.4% for longer procedures (P < .001). Using NSQIP, procedures ≤90 minutes had higher wRVU/h than longer procedures (12.2 vs 8.7, P < .001), but this was not statistically different using RUC estimates (8.4 vs 7.7, P = .13). Spearman's correlation coefficient confirmed a statistically significant negative relationship between wRVU/h and operative time using NSQIP data (r = -0.57, 95% confidence interval: -7.4 to -0.36), and no statistically significant relationship using RUC data (r = -0.24, 95% confidence interval: -0.49 to 0.04). CONCLUSION: The RUC-intended wRVU/h is more equitable than the NSQIP real-world wRVU/h with regard to operative time. Inaccurate RUC operative time estimates contribute to the undervaluation of longer urologic procedures.