The impact of COVID-19 on surgical volume and surgical training at a high-volume pelvic oncology centre

Effect of COVID-19 on Graduating Urology Resident Case Logs: Analysis of the Accreditation Council of Graduate Medical Education National Data Reports

OBJECTIVE

To assess the national case logs of the first graduating urologic resident cohorts to have trained during the COVID-19 pandemic for effects on surgical volumes.

METHODS

The nationally aggregated Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education urology resident case logs were obtained for graduates of academic years (AYs) 2015-2016 through 2020-2021. Case volume differences for tracked index categories were compared between AYs with a 1-way analysis of variance. Data were then combined into pre-COVID and COVID-affected resident cohorts and differences in average cases logged were analyzed with 2-tailed student's t-tests.

RESULTS

Graduating urology residents logged an average of 1322 (SD 24.8) cases over their residency during the examined period. Total cases had multiple statistical differences between AYs but the only index category with a statistically significant decrease for a COVID-affected AY compared to pre-COVID AY was pediatric majors: AY 2020-2021 logged fewer cases than AY 2015-2016 (53.9 vs 63.0, P = .004) and AY 2018-2019 (53.9 vs 61.2, P = .04). When aggregated into pre- and COVID-affected cohorts, both pediatric minor (123.4 vs 117.5, P = .049) and pediatric major (61.4 vs 56.8, P = .003) case averages decreased for the COVID-affected cohort of residents, but no adult index category decreased.

CONCLUSION

National graduating urology resident surgical volume for adult index categories was maintained through the pandemic. Pediatric cases saw a statistical decrease in volume of questionable clinical significance. This does not eliminate concern that individuals may have experienced a detrimental impact on their resident education.

Robotic Abdominal Surgery and COVID-19: A Systematic Review of Published Literature and Peer-Reviewed Guidelines during the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic

Background: Significant concern emerged at the beginning of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic regarding the safety and practicality of robotic-assisted surgery (RAS). We aimed to review reported surgical practice and peer-reviewed published review recommendations and guidelines relating to RAS during the pandemic. Methods: A systematic review was performed in keeping with PRISMA guidelines. This study was registered on Open Science Framework. Databases were searched using the following search terms: ‘robotic surgery’, ‘robotics’, ‘COVID-19’, and ‘SARS-CoV-2’. Firstly, articles describing any outcome from or reference to robotic surgery during the COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2 pandemic were considered for inclusion. Guidelines or review articles that outlined recommendations were included if published in a peer-reviewed journal and incorporating direct reference to RAS practice during the pandemic. The ROBINS-I (Risk of Bias in Non-Randomised Studies of Intervention) tool was used to assess the quality of surgical practice articles and guidelines and recommendation publications were assessed using the AGREE-II reporting tool. Publication trends, median time from submission to acceptance were reported along with clinical outcomes and practice recommendations. Results: Twenty-nine articles were included: 15 reporting RAS practice and 14 comprising peer-reviewed guidelines or review recommendations related to RAS during the pandemic, with multiple specialities (i.e., urology, colorectal, digestive surgery, and general minimally invasive surgery) covered. Included articles were published April 2020—December 2021, and the median interval from first submission to acceptance was 92 days. All surgical practice studies scored ‘low’ or ‘moderate’ risk of bias on the ROBINS-I assessment. All guidelines and recommendations scored ‘moderately well’ on the AGREE-II assessment; however, all underperformed in the domain of public and patient involvement. Overall, there were no increases in perioperative complication rates or mortalities in patients who underwent RAS compared to that expected in non-COVID practice. RAS was deemed safe, with recommendations for mitigation of risk of viral transmission. Conclusions: Continuation of RAS was feasible and safe during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic where resources permitted. Post-pandemic reflections upon published robotic data and publication patterns allows us to better prepare for future events and to enhance urgent guideline design processes.