Global change of surgical and oncological clinical practice in urology during early COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVES: While the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic captures healthcare resources worldwide, data on the impact of prioritization strategies in urology during pandemic are absent. We aimed to quantitatively assess the global change in surgical and oncological clinical practice in the early COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: In this cross-sectional observational study, we designed a 12-item online survey on the global effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on clinical practice in urology. Demographic survey data, change of clinical practice, current performance of procedures, and current commencement of treatment for 5 conditions in medical urological oncology were evaluated. RESULTS: 235 urologists from 44 countries responded. Out of them, 93% indicated a change of clinical practice due to COVID-19. In a 4-tiered surgery down-escalation scheme, 44% reported to make first cancellations, 23% secondary cancellations, 20% last cancellations and 13% emergency cases only. Oncological surgeries had low cancellation rates (%): transurethral resection of bladder tumor (27%), radical cystectomy (21-24%), nephroureterectomy (21%), radical nephrectomy (18%), and radical orchiectomy (8%). (Neo)adjuvant/palliative treatment is currently not started by more than half of the urologists. COVID-19 high-risk-countries had higher total cancellation rates for non-oncological procedures (78% vs. 68%, p = 0.01) and were performing oncological treatment for metastatic diseases at a lower rate (35% vs. 48%, p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 pandemic has affected clinical practice of 93% of urologists worldwide. The impact of implementing surgical prioritization protocols with moderate cancellation rates for oncological surgeries and delay or reduction in (neo)adjuvant/palliative treatment will have to be evaluated after the pandemic.

A prospective randomized pilot study evaluating an ERAS protocol versus a standard protocol for patients treated with radical cystectomy and urinary diversion for bladder cancer.

PURPOSE: There is a lack of evidence demonstrating the benefits of using enhanced recovery after surgery protocols (ERAS). Here, we propose to use a randomized clinical pilot study to demonstrate the benefits and feasibility of implementing ERAS versus standard protocols (SP) in patients undergoing radical cystectomy (RC) and urinary diversion. METHODS: 27 consecutive patients undergoing RC were included in the study. 12 patients were prospectively randomized to follow an ERAS protocol and 15 patients followed an SP. Duration of hospital stay, time to first flatulence and bowel movement, complications and 30 day readmission rates, as well as subjective outcomes such as postoperative pain, nausea, bowel symptoms, quality of life (QoL), and patient experience and satisfaction were evaluated. RESULTS: Patients following ERAS had a significantly shorter: hospital stay, time to flatulence, and time to bowel movement than patients following SP. No major complications were reported. Only one patient in the ERAS group was readmitted for bowel obstruction, and no patients were readmitted in the SP group. Patients under ERAS reported lower postoperative pain scores. Mean Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Bladder Cancer score decreased and mean Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite, bowel symptom score increased in the SP group at the time of discharge compared to prior to surgery. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows the feasibility of a randomized pilot study assessing ERAS compared to SP post RC. ERAS protocol provided evidence of significant benefits over SP with similar complication rates. This study suggests the need for a clinical trial of assessing ERAS protocols after RC.