METHODS: Urology residents and specialists were invited to test the training model. They were asked to complete a pre-task questionnaire, to perform piecemeal and en bloc resection of 'bladder tumours' within the training model, and to complete a post-task questionnaire afterwards. Their performances were assessed by faculty members of the AUSTEG. For the face validity, a pre-task questionnaire consisting of six statements on TURBT and the training model were set. For the content validity, a post-task questionnaire consisting of 14 items on the details of the training model were set. For the construct validity, a Global Rating Scale was used to assess the participants' performances. The participants were stratified into two groups (junior surgeons and senior surgeons groups) according to their duration of urology training.

RESULTS: For the pre-task questionnaire, a mean score of ≥ 4.0 out of 5.0 was achieved in 5 out of 6 statements. For the post-task questionnaire, a mean score of ≥ 4.5 out of 5.0 was achieved in every item. For the Global Rating Scale, the senior surgeons group had higher scores than the junior surgeons group in 8 out of 11 items as well as the total score.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the global impact of COVID-19 on urological providers and the provision of urological patient care.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A cross-sectional, web-based survey was conducted from March 30, 2020 to April 7, 2020. A 55-item questionnaire was developed to investigate the impact of COVID-19 on various aspects of urological services. Target respondents were practising urologists, urology trainees, and urology nurses/advanced practice providers.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary outcome was the degree of reduction in urological services, which was further stratified by the geographical location, degree of outbreak, and nature and urgency of urological conditions. The secondary outcome was the duration of delay in urological services.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 1004 participants responded to our survey, and they were mostly based in Asia, Europe, North America, and South America. Worldwide, 41% of the respondents reported that their hospital staff members had been diagnosed with COVID-19 infection, 27% reported personnel shortage, and 26% had to be deployed to take care of COVID-19 patients. Globally, only 33% of the respondents felt that they were given adequate personal protective equipment, and many providers expressed fear of going to work (47%). It was of concerning that 13% of the respondents were advised not to wear a surgical face mask for the fear of scaring their patients, and 21% of the respondents were advised not to discuss COVID-19 issues or concerns on media. COVID-19 had a global impact on the cut-down of urological services, including outpatient clinic appointments, outpatient investigations and procedures, and urological surgeries. The degree of cut-down of urological services increased with the degree of COVID-19 outbreak. On average, 28% of outpatient clinics, 30% of outpatient investigations and procedures, and 31% of urological surgeries had a delay of >8 wk. Urological services for benign conditions were more affected than those for malignant conditions. Finally, 47% of the respondents believed that the accumulated workload could be dealt with in a timely manner after the COVID-19 outbreak, but 50% thought the postponement of urological services would affect the treatment and survival outcomes of their patients. One of the limitations of this study is that Africa, Australia, and New Zealand were under-represented.

CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 had a profound global impact on urological care and urology providers. The degree of cut-down of urological services increased with the degree of COVID-19 outbreak and was greater for benign than for malignant conditions. One-fourth of urological providers were deployed to assist with COVID-19 care. Many providers reported insufficient personal protective equipment and support from hospital administration.

METHODS: We performed a literature search on 12 September 2023 through PubMed, EMBASE, and Scopus. The analysis included observational studies that examined the perioperative and long-term outcomes of patients with a KT who underwent RAPN with NIRF.

RESULTS: Overall, eight prospective studies, involving 535 patients, were eligible for this meta-analysis, with 212 participants in the ICG group and 323 in the No ICG group. For warm ischemia time, the ICG group showed a lower duration (weighted Mean difference (WMD) = -2.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) = -3.30--0.80, p = 0.011). The postoperative eGFR also favored the ICG group (WMD = 7.67, 95% CI = 2.88-12.46, p = 0.002). No difference emerged for the other perioperative outcomes between the two groups. In terms of oncological radicality, the positive surgical margins and tumor recurrence rates were similar among the two groups.

METHODS: The Asian Urological Surgery Training and Educational Group (AUSTEG) Laparoscopic Upper Tract Surgery Course implemented and validated the FLS program for its usage in laparoscopic surgical training. Delegates' basic laparoscopic skills were assessed using three different training models (peg transfer, precision cutting, and intra-corporeal suturing). They also performed live porcine laparoscopic surgery at the same workshop. Live surgery skills were assessed by blinded faculty using the OSATS rating scale.

RESULTS: From March 2016 to March 2019, a total of 81 certified urologists participated in the course, with a median of 5 years of post-residency experience. Although differences in task time did not reach statistical significance, those with more surgical experience were visibly faster at completing the peg transfer and intra-corporeal suturing FLS tasks. However, they took longer to complete the precision cutting task than participants with less experience. Overall OSATS scores correlated weakly with all three FLS tasks (peg transfer time: r=-0.331, r 2=0.110; precision cutting time: r=-0.240, r 2=0.058; suturing with intra-corporeal knot time: r=-0.451, r 2=0.203).

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients diagnosed with EPN between 2013 and 2020 were retrospectively included. Data from 15 centers (70%) were used to develop the scoring system, and data from 7 centers (30%) were used to validate it. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to identify independent factors related to mortality. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was performed to construct the scoring system and calculate the risk of mortality. A standardized regression coefficient was used to quantify the discriminating power of each factor to convert the individual coefficients into points. The area under the curve was used to quantify the scoring system performance. An 8-point scoring system for the mortality risk was created (range, 0-7).

RESULTS: In total, 570 patients were included (400 in the test group and 170 in the validation group). Independent predictors of mortality in the multivariable logistic regression were included in the scoring system: quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment score ≥2 (2 points), anemia, paranephric gas extension, leukocyte count >22,000/μL, thrombocytopenia, and hyperglycemia (1 point each). The mortality rate was <5% for scores ≤3, 83.3% for scores 6, and 100% for scores 7. The area under the curve was 0.90 (95% confidence interval, 0.84-0.95) for test and 0.91 (95% confidence interval, 0.84-0.97) for the validation group.