Perceptions and Practice Patterns of Urologists Relating to Intrarenal Pressure During Ureteroscopy: Findings from a Global Cross-Sectional Analysis.

Objectives: To explore beliefs and practice patterns of urologists regarding intrarenal pressure (IRP) during ureteroscopy (URS). Methods: A customized questionnaire was designed in a 4-step iterative process incorporating a systematic review of the literature and critical analysis of topics/questions by six endourologists. The 19-item questionnaire interrogated perceptions, practice patterns, and key areas of uncertainty regarding ureteroscopic IRP, and was disseminated via urologic societies, networks, and social media to the international urologic community. Consultants/attendings and trainees currently practicing urology were eligible to respond. Quantitative responses were compiled and analyzed using descriptive statistics and chi-square test, with subgroup analysis by procedure volume. Results: Responses were received from 522 urologists, practicing in six continents. The individual question response rate was >97%. Most (83.9%, 437/515) respondents were practicing at a consultant/attending level. An endourology fellowship incorporating stone management had been completed by 59.2% (307/519). The vast majority of respondents (85.4%, 446/520) scored the perceived clinical significance of IRP during URS ≥7/10 on a Likert scale. Concern was uniformly reported, with no difference between respondents with and without a high annual case volume (p = 0.16). Potential adverse outcomes respondents associated with elevated ureteroscopic IRP were urosepsis (96.2%, 501/520), collecting system rupture (80.8%, 421/520), postoperative pain (67%, 349/520), bleeding (63.72%, 332/520), and long-term renal damage (26.1%, 136/520). Almost all participants (96.2%, 501/520) used measures aiming to reduce IRP during URS. Regarding the perceived maximum acceptable threshold for mean IRP during URS, 30 mm Hg (40 cm H2O) was most frequently selected [23.2% (119/463)], with most participants (78.2%, 341/463) choosing a value ≤40 mm Hg. Conclusions: This is the first large-scale analysis of urologists' perceptions of ureteroscopic IRP. It identifies high levels of concern among the global urologic community, with almost unanimous agreement that elevated IRP is associated with adverse clinical outcomes. Equipoise remains regarding appropriate IRP limits intraoperatively and the most appropriate technical strategies to ensure adherence to these.

Telemedicine use in current urologic oncology clinical practice.

Introduction: In the last fifteen years, there have been important technological advances in telehealth systems and urology, along with other specialties, has been a pioneer in the successful use of this medical care modality. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the use of telemedicine has been rapidly embraced by the urology community around the world. A review of the most relevant and updated articles on telemedicine and telehealth in urology has been carried out with the aim of better understanding how it has been implemented to date, as well as reviewing concepts, current regulations, health policies and recommendations for its implementation. Methods: A narrative review of the current literature published up to April 2022 on the use of telemedicine in urology was performed. From the search results, 42 publications were obtained for analysis. Results: Telemedicine in urology has been shown to be useful in a variety of clinical scenarios within urological practice, from benign diseases to advanced cancers. This is due to the positive impact on medical consultation times, lower patient mobility costs, less work absenteeism and greater protection for both the patient and the doctor. The main limitations for the use of telemedicine lie in the impossibility of a correct physical examination, which is essential in certain situations, as well as the lack of accessibility to technology in disadvantaged populations and in elderly patients who have not adapted to the use of technology, as well as the lack of development of health policies to establish their implementation in some countries. Conclusion: Telemedicine is in full growth. There is much information in the current literature on the successful adoption of telemedicine for patients suffering from urological diseases. While the use and implementation of these new practices has been rapid in the urology community, more work is needed to bring more accessible specialty care to underserved and underdeveloped areas. Health policies must promote its development to reduce costs and increase access.

Current trends in erectile rehabilitation after radical prostatectomy: Results from a worldwide survey.

We aimed to analyse the current trend of erectile rehabilitation (ER) following radical prostatectomy (RP) using a dedicated survey. An online survey was developed between July and September 2020, aiming to evaluate the ER protocols after RP in daily practice among urologists, andrologists, sexual medicine specialists and residents. We investigated demographics data, type of RP performed, and type, schedule, timing and duration of ER protocols. In total, 518 responders from 52 countries completed the survey. Surgical techniques reported were: 38.9% open, 22.9% laparoscopic and 38.2% robot-assisted RP. 33% of the responders begin ER at the catheter removal, 22% 1 month after surgery and 15% before surgery. Phosphodiesterase inhibitors were the most used medication as first-line treatment (99.4%). Tadalafil 20 mg was the most prescribed, and used daily in 48.2% of the cases, and 2-3 times/week in 46%. Intra-cavernosal injection of prostaglandin E1 was the second most common prescribed monotherapy (67.9%) followed by the association of phosphodiesterase inhibitors and vacuum-erection device (29.6%). The duration of ER was <6 months in 16.2%, between 6 and 11 months in 39%, between 12 and 18 months in 31.9%, between 19-24 months in 9.2% and >24 months in 3.7%. This study showed that the approach to ER after RP was inhomogeneous. International guidelines are urgently needed to standardise ER protocols.

Urological Cancers and Kidney Transplantation: a Literature Review.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The aim of this review is to provide an overview of epidemiology, risk factors, and treatment of urological malignancies in renal transplant recipients (RTR). RECENT FINDINGS: Although optimal immunosuppressive therapy and cancer management in these patients remain controversial, adherence to general guidelines is recommended. Kidney transplantation is recognized as the standard of care for the treatment of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) as it offers prolonged survival and better quality of life. In the last decades, survival of RTRs has increased as a result of improved immunosuppressive therapy; nonetheless, the risk of developing cancer is higher among RTRs compared to the general population. Urological malignancies are the second most common after hematological cancer and often have more aggressive behavior and poor prognosis.

Strategies to Mitigate the Impact of COVID 19 Pandemic on Organ Donation and Kidney Transplantation in Latin America.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: COVID-19 pandemics have severely affected Latin America. It has resulted in SARS-CoV-2-associated clinical adverse outcomes, but also in social and economic deterioration. Consequently, it generated a significant negative impact on organ donation and kidney transplantation (KTx) activity in our region, leading to a negative impact on these patients' survival and quality of life. For this reason, this article aimed to describe applicable logistics, organizational and clinical strategies to mitigate the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on kidney donation and transplantation in our region. RECENT FINDINGS: Absenteeism to hemodialysis sessions in patients with end-stage renal disease has been described in up to 54% in Latin America. Not surprisingly, there was a reduction in organ donation and transplants between 21 and 59%. Also, there is a higher incidence of COVID-19 positive tests in the waiting list population than KTx recipients (9.9%). However, there was a higher mortality rate in KTx recipients than the waiting list population (32%). Additionally, 59% of living donor kidney transplant programs suspended the evaluation of new donors due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Throughout this manuscript, we summarize some practical tips to resume organ donation and KTx during pandemics in Latin America, such as selecting healthy donors and recipients, universal SARS-CoV-2 screening, implementing COVID-19 accessible pathways, and telehealth as a standard, and postpone all non-urgent visits.

New Technologies for Kidney Surgery Planning 3D, Impression, Augmented Reality 3D, Reconstruction: Current Realities and Expectations.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: We aim to summarize the current state of art about 3D applications in urology focusing on kidney surgeries. In addition we aim to provide a snapshot about future perspective of intraoperative applications of augmented reality (AR). RECENT FINDINGS: A variety of applications in different fields have been proposed. Many applications concern current realities and 3D reconstruction, while some others are about future perspective. The majority of recent studies have focused their attention on preoperative surgical planning, patient education, surgical training, and AR. The disposability of 3D models in healthcare scenarios might improve surgical outcomes, learning curves of novice surgeons and residents, as well as patients' understanding and compliance, allowing a more shared surgical decision-making.

[Preoperative double J stent placement in the endoscopic treatment of ureteral and renal Stone: A multicenter, national study.] / Colocación preoperatoria de catéter doble J en el tratamiento endoscópico de la litiasis ureteral y renal: estudio multicéntrico, nacional.

OBJECTIVE: Aim of our study was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of the preoperative placement of JJ stent compared to not doing in patients undergoing ureteroscopy for ureteral and kidney stone. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Prospective, observational, multicenter study. Adult patients, who underwent ureteroscopy treatment for ureteral and kidney stone, were recruited from August 2017 to March 2019, in 23 Argentine institutions. The variables analyzed included: demographic data, stone size and location, stone-free rate (SFR) and complications. RESULTS: 580 patients were included. 473 with ureteral stone (309 with and 164 without prior JJ stent) and 107 with kidney stone (77 with and 30 without prior JJ stent). The SFR was higher in the group with previous JJ stent, both in the treatment of ureteral stone (82.2% vs. 90.9%, OR 2.15 (1.17 to 3.96)), and in the treatment of kidney stone (73.3% vs. 89.6%, OR 3.14 (1.02 to 9.61)). No differences were established in the complication rate both in the treatment of ureteral stone (6.1 vs. 6.1%, OR 0.98 (0.45 to 2.19)) and in the treatment of kidney stone (6.7 vs. 5.2%, OR 0.76 (0.13 a 4.46)). CONCLUSIONS: The preoperative placement of JJ stent, increases SFR in the treatment of ureteral and kidney stone, but not decrease the complication rate.

OBJETIVO: El objetivo fue evaluar la efectividad y seguridad de la colocación preoperatoria del catéter doble J comparado con no hacerlo, en pacientes sometidos a ureteroscopía por litiasis ureteral y renal.MATERIALES Y MÉTODOS: Estudio prospectivo, observacional, multicéntrico. Se reclutaron pacientes adultos, que se sometieron al tratamiento ureteroscópico para litiasis ureteral y renal, desde agosto de 2017 a marzo de 2019, en 23 instituciones Argentinas. Las variables analizadas incluyeron: datos demográficos, tamaño y ubicación de la litiasis, tasa libre de litiasis (LL) al finalizar el procedimiento y de complicaciones en el posoperatorio inmediato. RESULTADOS: Se incluyeron 580 pacientes. 473 con litiasis ureteral (309 con y 164 sin doble J previo) y 107 con litiasis renal (77 con y 30 sin doble J previo). La tasa LL fue mayor en el grupo con doble J previo, tanto en el tratamiento de la litiasis ureteral (82,2% vs. 90,9%, OR 2,15 (1,17 a 3,96)), como en el tratamiento de la litiasis renal (73,3% vs. 89,6%, OR 3,14 (1,02 a 9,61)). No se establecieron diferencias en la tasa de complicaciones tanto en el tratamiento de la litiasis ureteral (6,1 vs 6,1%, OR 0,98 (0,45 a 2,19)) como en el tratamiento de la litiasis renal (6,7 vs 5,2%, OR 0,76 (0,13 a 4,46)). CONCLUSIONES: La colocación preoperatoria del catéter doble J mejoró la tasa LL en el tratamiento de la litiasis ureteral y renal, pero no disminuyó la tasa de complicaciones.

Colocación preoperatoria de catéter doble j en el tratamiento endoscópico de la litiasis ureteral y renal: estudio multicéntrico, nacional / Preoperative placement of a double J stent in the endoscopic treatment of ureteral and renal lithiasis: a multicenter, national study

Objetivo: El objetivo fue evaluar la efectividad y seguridad de la colocación preoperatoria delcatéter doble J comparado con no hacerlo, en pacientes sometidos a ureteroscopía por litiasis ureteral y renal.Materiales y métodos: Estudio prospectivo, observacional, multicéntrico. Se reclutaron pacientes adultos,que se sometieron al tratamiento ureteroscópico paralitiasis ureteral y renal, desde agosto de 2017 a marzode 2019, en 23 instituciones Argentinas. Las variables analizadas incluyeron: datos demográficos, tamaño yubicación de la litiasis, tasa libre de litiasis (LL) al finalizar el procedimiento y de complicaciones en el posoperatorio inmediato.Resultados: Se incluyeron 580 pacientes. 473 conlitiasis ureteral (309 con y 164 sin doble J previo) y107 con litiasis renal (77 con y 30 sin doble J previo).La tasa LL fue mayor en el grupo con doble J previo,tanto en el tratamiento de la litiasis ureteral (82,2% vs.90,9%, OR 2,15 (1,17 a 3,96)), como en el tratamiento de la litiasis renal (73,3% vs. 89,6%, OR 3,14 (1,02a 9,61)). No se establecieron diferencias en la tasade complicaciones tanto en el tratamiento de la litiasisureteral (6,1 vs 6,1%, OR 0,98 (0,45 a 2,19)) comoen el tratamiento de la litiasis renal (6,7 vs 5,2%, OR0,76 (0,13 a 4,46)).Conclusiones: La colocación preoperatoria delcatéter doble J mejoró la tasa LL en el tratamiento dela litiasis ureteral y renal, pero no disminuyó la tasa decomplicaciones.(AU)

Objetive: Aim of our study was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of the preoperativeplacement of JJ stent compared to not doing in patientsundergoing ureteroscopy for ureteral and kidney stone.Materials and methods: Prospective, observational, multicenter study. Adult patients, who underwent ureteroscopy treatment for ureteral and kidney stone, wererecruited from August 2017 to March 2019, in 23Argentine institutions. The variables analyzed included:demographic data, stone size and location, stone-freerate (SFR) and complications.Results: 580 patients were included. 473 with ureteral stone (309 with and 164 without prior JJ stent)and 107 with kidney stone (77 with and 30 withoutprior JJ stent). The SFR was higher in the group withprevious JJ stent, both in the treatment of ureteral stone(82.2% vs. 90.9%, OR 2.15 (1.17 to 3.96)), and inthe treatment of kidney stone (73.3% vs. 89.6%, OR3.14 (1.02 to 9.61)). No differences were establishedin the complication rate both in the treatment of ureteralstone (6.1 vs. 6.1%, OR 0.98 (0.45 to 2.19)) and inthe treatment of kidney stone (6.7 vs. 5.2%, OR 0.76(0.13 a 4.46)).Conclusions: The preoperative placement of JJstent, increases SFR in the treatment of ureteral and kidney stone, but not decrease the complication rate.(AU)

[Kidney transplantation into the urological training in Colombia.] / Trasplante renal en el entrenamiento urológico colombiano.

Kidney transplantation (KTx) is the best therapeutic modality for end stage renal disease. Currently in Colombia there are approximately 2800 patients waiting for KTx. Historically, urologists have beenin close contact with KTx, however in Colombia the interaction between urology and KT is scarce. OBJECTIVES: To determine the perceptions and KTx training level into colombian urology residents. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective and descriptive study through 14 items survey applied to colombian urology residents. Data are summarizedas means and Pearson Chi2 test was used to evaluate differences between qualitative variables.RESULTS: The study included 76 participants. More than half of the programs of urology residency in Colombia includes KTx training into their academic programs, 36.84% of participants have received formal training (lectures, rounds, clinical rotation, seminars) on KTx, 28.95% have participated into KTx procedure, 97.37% considered the KTx as a urological field, KTx is the urological area with least academic interest for the residents, 76.32% consider their training in KTx as insufficient. The main barrier identified to increase training in KTx during urology residency is the non-availability of a formal rotation. CONCLUSIONS: KTx is not an area of primary interest for the colombian urology residents. Although most residents identify the KTx as an area related to urology and that exposure to some phases of the KTx is acceptable, 76% of residents consider their transplant training as insufficient. The main barriers identified for the urology resident's approach to KTx are modifiable.

El trasplante renal (TxR) es el mejor tratamiento para la enfermedad renal crónica terminal. En Colombia hay más de 2800 personas en lista de espera para este proceso. Históricamente el urólogo ha estado vinculado con el TxR, sin embargo, en Colombia son pocos los urólogos que ejercen su práctica clínico-quirúrgica en este ámbito. OBJETIVOS: Determinar las percepciones y el nivel de entrenamiento que reciben los médicos residentes d e urología en Colombia con relación al TxR. MATERIALES Y MÉTODOS: Se realizó un estudio descriptivo de corte transversal. Se practicó una encuesta con 14 ítems a los médicos residentes de urología de Colombia para valorar sus percepciones sobre el entrenamiento recibido en TxR. El análisis de datos incluye estadística descriptiva y las diferencias entre variables cualitativas se analizaron con la prueba de Pearson Chi2. RESULTADOS: Se incluyeron 76 participantes. 59,21% manifestó que su programa incluye formación en TxR, 36,84% ha recibido entrenamiento formal en TxR, 28,95% ha participado en un TxR, 97,37% considera el TxR como un área concerniente a la urología, el TxR fue el área de menor interés en la formación y perspectiva laboral entre los participantes, 76,32% considera que su formación en TxR es insuficiente, la principal barrera identificada para aumentar el entrenamiento en TxR durante la residencia es la no disponibilidad de una rotación formal. CONCLUSIONES: El TxR no es un área de interés principal para el residente de urología colombiano; a pesar de que la mayoría de los residentes identifica al TxR cómo un área urológica y que la exposición a algunas fases del trasplante es aceptable, el 76% de residentes considera insuficiente su formación en TxR. Las principales barreras identificadas para la aproximación der esidente de urología al TxR son modificables.

Trasplante renal en el entrenamiento urológico colombiano / Kidney transplant in Colombian urological training

El trasplante renal (TxR) es el mejor tratamiento para la enfermedad renal crónica terminal. EnColombia hay más de 2800 personas en lista de espera para este proceso. Históricamente el urólogo haestado vinculado con el TxR, sin embargo, en Colombia son pocos los urólogos que ejercen su práctica clínico-quirúrgica en este ámbito.OBJETIVOS: Determinar las percepciones y el nivel de entrenamiento que reciben los médicos residentes de urología en Colombia con relación al TxR. MATERIALES Y MÉTODOS: Se realizó un estudio descriptivo de corte transversal. Se practicó una encuesta con 14 ítems a los médicos residentes de urología de Colombia para valorar sus percepciones sobre el entrenamiento recibido en TxR. El análisis de datos incluye estadística descriptiva y las diferencias entre variables cualitativas se analizaron con la prueba de Pearson Chi2. RESULTADOS: Se incluyeron 76 participantes. 59,21% manifestó que su programa incluye formación en TxR, 36,84% ha recibido entrenamiento formal en TxR, 28,95% ha participado en un TxR, 97,37% considera el TxR como un área concerniente a la urología, el TxR fue el área de menor interés en la formación y perspectiva laboral entre los participantes, 76,32% considera que su formación en TxR es insuficiente, la principal barrera identificada para aumentar el entrenamiento en TxR durante la residencia es la no disponibilidad de una rotación formal. CONCLUSIONES: El TxR no es un área de interés principal para el residente de urología colombiano; a pesar de que la mayoría de los residentes identifica al TxR cómo un área urológica y que la exposición a algunas fases del trasplante es aceptable, el 76% de residentes considera insuficiente su formación en TxR. Las principales barreras identificadas para la aproximación del residente de urología al TxR son modificables.(AU)

Kidney transplantation (KTx) is the best therapeutic modality for end stage renal disease. Currently in Colombia there are approximately 2800 patients waiting for KTx. Historically, urologists have been in close contact with KTx, however in Colombia the interaction between urology and KT is scarce.OBJECTIVES: To determine the perceptions and KTx training level into colombian urology residents. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective and descriptive study through 14 items surveyapplied to colombian urology residents. Data are summarized as means and Pearson Chi2 test was used toevaluate differences between qualitative variables. RESULTS: The study included 76 participants. More than half of the programs of urology residency in Colombia includes KTx training into their academic programs, 36.84% of participants have received formal training (lectures, rounds, clinical rotation, seminars) on KTx, 28.95% have participated into KTx procedure, 97.37% considered the KTx as a urological field, KTx is the urological area with least academic interest for the residents, 76.32% consider their training in KTx as insufficient. The main barrier identified to increase training in KTx during urology residency is the non-availability of a formal rotation. CONCLUSIONS: KTx is not an area of primary interest for the colombian urology residents. Although most residents identify the KTx as an area related to urology and that exposure to some phases of the KTx is acceptable, 76% of residents consider their transplant training as insufficient. The main barriers identified for the urology resident’s approach to KTx are modifiable.(AU)

Global Survey of the Roles and Attitudes Toward Social Media Platforms Amongst Urology Trainees.

OBJECTIVES: To perform a global survey assessing the role of and the attitudes toward media platforms amongst training Urologists METHODS: We distributed a 21-item online survey on social medial (SoMe) and other media platforms to current Urology trainees by email via individual institutions and multiple Urological associations. The survey acquired data including baseline characteristics, the role of and attitudes toward SoMe and other media platforms in training and assessed the prevalence of Social Media Disorder (SMD) based on the validated 9-item SMD Scale. Stata IC was used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: Three hundred and seventy-two urology trainees in 6 continents participated in the survey. Overall, 99.4% used SoMe and 27.3% listened to healthcare-focused podcasts. Most trainees (85.5%) are using guideline apps for education purposes, with the top 3 most utilized apps being the EAU, AUA, and UpToDate applications. There was mixed sentiment regarding the impact of SoMe on the patient-physician relationship, wherein most felt it challenges the doctor's authority (56.7%) but also empowers the patient (62.7%) and encourages shared-care (57.3%). Unfortunately, 11.3% of urology trainees met criteria for SMD while 65.4% had not reviewed professional guidelines on appropriate SoMe use. CONCLUSION: Despite practically all urology trainees using SoMe and guideline applications, the majority of trainees have not reviewed or have been educated on professional guidelines for SoMe usage. There is a small but significant number of trainees who are at risk for SMD which may be contributing to higher rates of physician burnout amongst urologists.

Telemedicine Usage Among Urologists During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Cross-Sectional Study.

BACKGROUND: Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, urology was one of the specialties with the lowest rates of telemedicine and videoconferencing use. Common barriers to the implementation of telemedicine included a lack of technological literacy, concerns with reimbursement, and resistance to changes in the workplace. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic declared in March 2020, the delivery of urological services globally has quickly shifted to telemedicine to account for the mass clinical, procedural, and operative cancellations, inadequate personal protective equipment, and shortage of personnel. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate current telemedicine usage by urologists, urologists' perceptions on the necessity of in-person clinic appointments, the usability of telemedicine, and the current barriers to its implementation. METHODS: We conducted a global, cross-sectional, web-based survey to investigate the use of telemedicine before and after the COVID-19 pandemic. Urologists' perceived usability of telemedicine was assessed using a modified Delphi approach to create questions based on a modified version of the validated Telehealth Usability Questionnaire (TUQ). For the purposes of this study, telemedicine was defined as video calls only. RESULTS: A total of 620 urologists from 58 different countries and 6 continents participated in the survey. Prior to COVID-19, 15.8% (n=98) of urologists surveyed were using telemedicine in their clinical practices; during the pandemic, that proportion increased to 46.1% (n=283). Of the urologists without telemedicine experience, interest in telemedicine usage increased from 43.7% (n=139) to 80.8% (n=257) during the COVID-19 pandemic. Among urologists that used telemedicine during the pandemic, 80.9% (n=244) were interested in continuing to use it in their practice. The three most commonly used platforms were Zoom, Doxy.me, and Epic, and the top three barriers to implementing telemedicine were patients' lack of technological comprehension, patients' lack of access to the required technology, and reimbursement concerns. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to quantify the use, usability, and pervading interest in telemedicine among urologists during the COVID-19 pandemic. In the face of this pandemic, urologists' usage of telemedicine nearly tripled, demonstrating their ability to adopt and adapt telemedicine into their practices, but barriers involving the technology itself are still preventing many from utilizing it despite increasing interest.

Exploring Urological Experience in the COVID-19 Outbreak: American Confederation of Urology (CAU) Survey.

PURPOSE: To explore the current situation faced by Latin American urology departments during the COVID-19 Outbreak in terms of knowledge, actions, prioritization of urology practices, and implementation of internal clinical management protocols for inpatients and outpatients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A non-validated, structured, self-administered, electronic survey with 35 closed multiple choice questions was conducted in Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, and English and Deutsch versions from April 1st to April 30th, 2020. The survey was distributed through social networks and the official American Confederation of Urology (CAU) website. It was anonymous, mainly addressed to Latin American urologists and urology residents. It included 35 questions exploring different aspects: 1) Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) and internal management protocols for healthcare providers; 2) Priority surgeries and urological urgencies and 3) Inpatient and outpatient care. RESULTS: Of 864 surveys received, 846 had at least 70% valid responses and were included in the statistical analyses. Surveys corresponded to South America in 62% of the cases, Central America and North America in 29.7%. 12.7% were residents. Regarding to PPE and internal management protocols, 88% confirmed the implementation of specific protocols and 45.4% have not received training to perform a safe clinical practice; only 2.3% reported being infected with COVID-19. 60.9% attended urgent surgeries. The following major uro-oncologic surgeries were reported as high priority: Radical Nephrectomy (RN) 58.4%, and Radical Cystectomy (RC) 57.3%. When we associate the capacity of hospitalization (urologic beds available) and percentage of high-priority surgery performed, we observed that centers with fewer urological beds (10-20) compared to centers with more urological beds (31-40) performed more frequently major urologic cancer surgeries: RN 54.5% vs 60.8% (p=0.0003), RC 53.1% vs 64.9% (p=0.005) respectively. CONCLUSIONS: At the time of writing (May 13th 2020) our data represents a snapshot of COVID-19 outbreak in Latin American urological practices. Our findings have practical implications and should be contextualized considering many factors related to patients and urological care: The variability of health care scenarios, institutional capacity, heterogeneity and burden of urologic disease, impact of surgical indications and decision making when prioritizing and scheduling surgeries in times of COVID-19 pandemic.

Emergency Surgery in Urology during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Proposal: To highlight the indications for emergency surgery during the 2019 Coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19) that support recommendations published in mid-March 2020 by the American Confederation of Urology on its website. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A bibliographic search was conducted in PubMed and Cochrane Library to perform a non-systematic review, using key words: Urology, Emergency and COVID-19, to determine recommendations for patients that should receive emergency care due to urological pathology. RESULTS: The main recommendations and protocols in the management of different urological emergencies during the COVID-19 pandemic are reviewed and discussed. CONCLUSIONS: We are living a new condition with the COVID-19 pandemic, which obliges urologists to conform to the guidelines that appear on a daily basis formulated by multidisciplinary surgical groups to manage urological emergencies. Consequently, in this time of health crisis, we must adapt to the resources available, implementing all biosecurity measures to protect patients and all health personnel who are in charge of patient management.

Small renal masses in Latin-American population: characteristics and prognostic factors for survival, recurrence and metastasis - a multi-institutional study from LARCG database.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate demographic, clinical and pathological characteristics of small renal masses (SRM) (≤ 4 cm) in a Latin-American population provided by LARCG (Latin-American Renal Cancer Group) and analyze predictors of survival, recurrence and metastasis. METHODS: A multi-institutional retrospective cohort study of 1523 patients submitted to surgical treatment for non-metastatic SRM from 1979 to 2016. Comparisons between radical (RN) or partial nephrectomy (PN) and young or elderly patients were performed. Kaplan-Meier curves and log-rank tests estimated 10-year overall survival. Predictors of local recurrence or metastasis were analyzed by a multivariable logistic regression model. RESULTS: PN and RN were performed in 897 (66%) and 461 (34%) patients. A proportional increase of PN cases from 48.5% (1979-2009) to 75% (after 2009) was evidenced. Stratifying by age, elderly patients (≥ 65 years) had better 10-year OS rates when submitted to PN (83.5%), than RN (54.5%), p = 0.044. This disparity was not evidenced in younger patients. On multivariable model, bilaterality, extracapsular extension and ASA (American Society of Anesthesiologists) classification ≥3 were predictors of local recurrence. We did not identify significant predictors for distant metastasis in our series. CONCLUSIONS: PN is performed in Latin-America in a similar proportion to developed areas and it has been increasing in the last years. Even in elderly individuals, if good functional status, sufficiently fit to surgery, and favorable tumor characteristics, they should be encouraged to perform PN. Intending to an earlier diagnosis of recurrence or distant metastasis, SRM cases with unfavorable characteristics should have a more rigorous follow-up routine.

COVID-19s Impact on Italian Urology

ABSTRACT The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted our lives, our habits and our healthcare system. Italy is one of the countries affected first and more aggressively from the outbreak. Our rapidity has been guide for other healthcare systems from around the World. We describe the impact of COVID-19 on Urology, how the Urological scientific community responded to the emergency and our experience in a high-volume Roman University hospital. The aim of our work is to share our experience providing suggestions for other global hospitals on how to manage the COVID-19 emergency.

Exploring Urological Experience in the COVID-19 Outbreak: American Confederation of Urology (CAU) Survey

ABSTRACT Purpose: To explore the current situation faced by Latin American urology departments during the COVID-19 Outbreak in terms of knowledge, actions, prioritization of urology practices, and implementation of internal clinical management protocols for inpatients and outpatients. Material and Methods: A non-validated, structured, self-administered, electronic survey with 35 closed multiple choice questions was conducted in Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, and English and Deutsch versions from April 1st to April 30th, 2020. The survey was distributed through social networks and the official American Confederation of Urology (CAU) website. It was anonymous, mainly addressed to Latin American urologists and urology residents. It included 35 questions exploring different aspects: 1) Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) and internal management protocols for healthcare providers; 2) Priority surgeries and urological urgencies and 3) Inpatient and outpatient care. Results: Of 864 surveys received, 846 had at least 70% valid responses and were included in the statistical analyses. Surveys corresponded to South America in 62% of the cases, Central America and North America in 29.7%. 12.7% were residents. Regarding to PPE and internal management protocols, 88% confirmed the implementation of specific protocols and 45.4% have not received training to perform a safe clinical practice; only 2.3% reported being infected with COVID-19. 60.9% attended urgent surgeries. The following major uro-oncologic surgeries were reported as high priority: Radical Nephrectomy (RN) 58.4%, and Radical Cystectomy (RC) 57.3%. When we associate the capacity of hospitalization (urologic beds available) and percentage of high-priority surgery performed, we observed that centers with fewer urological beds (10-20) compared to centers with more urological beds (31-40) performed more frequently major urologic cancer surgeries: RN 54.5% vs 60.8% (p=0.0003), RC 53.1% vs 64.9% (p=0.005) respectively. Conclusions: At the time of writing (May 13th 2020) our data represents a snapshot of COVID-19 outbreak in Latin American urological practices. Our findings have practical implications and should be contextualized considering many factors related to patients and urological care: The variability of health care scenarios, institutional capacity, heterogeneity and burden of urologic disease, impact of surgical indications and decision making when prioritizing and scheduling surgeries in times of COVID-19 pandemic.

Emergency Surgery in Urology during the COVID-19 Pandemic

ABSTRACT Proposal: To highlight the indications for emergency surgery during the 2019 Coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19) that support recommendations published in midMarch 2020 by the American Confederation of Urology on its website. Materials and Methods: A bibliographic search was conducted in PubMed and Cochrane Library to perform a non-systematic review, using key words: Urology, Emergency and COVID-19, to determine recommendations for patients that should receive emergency care due to urological pathology. Results: The main recommendations and protocols in the management of different urological emergencies during the COVID-19 pandemic are reviewed and discussed. Conclusions: We are living a new condition with the COVID-19 pandemic, which obliges urologists to conform to the guidelines that appear on a daily basis formulated by multidisciplinary surgical groups to manage urological emergencies. Consequently, in this time of health crisis, we must adapt to the resources available, implementing all biosecurity measures to protect patients and all health personnel who are in charge of patient management.