Impact of Assistant Experience on Perioperative Outcomes of Simple and Radical Laparoscopic Nephrectomy: Does It Really Matter?

Background and Objectives: While systematic reviews highlight the advantages of laparoscopic nephrectomy over traditional open surgery, the impact of an assistant's experience on surgical outcomes remains unclear. This study aims to evaluate whether the level of assistant expertise influences laparoscopic nephrectomy outcomes. Materials and Methods: Retrospective data from our institutional database were analyzed for patients who underwent laparoscopic nephrectomy between January 2018 and December 2022. Procedures were performed by a highly experienced surgeon, including postgraduate year (PGY)-3 to PGY-5 residents as assistants. Senior-level assistants had completed at least 10 procedures. Patient characteristics, surgical outcomes, and postoperative details were collected. Multivariable linear and logistic regression models were performed to test the effect of assistant experience (low vs. high) on estimated blood loss (EBL), length of stay (LOS), operative time (OT), and postoperative complications. Results: 105 patients were included, where 53% had highly experienced assistants and 47% had less experienced ones. Low assistant experience and higher BMI predicted longer operative time (OT), confirmed by multivariable regression (β = 40.5, confidence interval [CI] 18.7-62.3, p < 0.001). Assistant experience did not significantly affect EBL or LOS after adjusting for covariates (β = -14.2, CI -91.8-63.3, p = 0.7 and β = -0.83, CI -2.7-1.02, p = 0.4, respectively). There was no correlation between assistant experience and postoperative complications. Conclusions: Assistant experience does not significantly impact complications, EBL, and LOS in laparoscopic nephrectomy. Surgeries with less experienced assistants had longer OT, but the overall clinical impact seems limited. Trainee involvement remains safe, guided by experienced surgeons.

Patients' perceptions of quality of care delivery by urology residents: A nationwide study

OBJECTIVE

To present the results of a nationwide survey among urological patients to evaluate their perception of the quality of care provided by residents.

METHODS

An anonymous survey was distributed to patients who were referred to 22 Italian academic institutions. The survey aimed to investigate the professional figure of the urology resident as perceived by the patient.

RESULTS

A total of 2587 patients were enrolled in this study. In all, 51.6% of patients were able to correctly identify a urology resident; however, almost 40% of respondents discriminated residents from fully trained urologists based exclusively on their young age. Overall, 98.2% patients rated the service provided by the resident as at least sufficient. Urology trainees were considered by more than 50% of the patients interviewed to have good communication skills, expertise and willingness. Overall, patients showed an excellent willingness to be managed by urology residents. The percentage of patients not available for this purpose showed an increasing trend that directly correlated with the difficulty of the procedure. Approximately 5-10% of patients were not willing to be managed by residents for simple procedures such as clinical visits, cystoscopy or sonography, and up to a third of patients were not prepared to undergo any surgical procedure performed by residents during steps in major surgery, even if the residents were adequately tutored.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data showed that patients have a good willingness to be managed by residents during their training, especially for medium- to low-difficulty procedures. Furthermore, the majority of patients interviewed rated the residents' care delivery as sufficient. Urology trainees were considered to have good communication skills, expertise and willingness.

Current status of urological training and differences between institutions

OBJECTIVES

Appropriate training of urology residents is important to secure not only high-quality patient care, but also the bright future of our specialty. We aimed to investigate residency training from the perspective of qualification and standardization and to evaluate surgical education, publication output, working conditions, future plans, and overall satisfaction, in a comprehensive way.

METHODS

We conducted a survey of urology chief residents/recent graduates in Turkey to identify differences between institutions and deficiencies in urology resident training. A total of 155 chief residents/recently graduated specialists were contacted by phone and a survey was completed.

RESULTS

The survey response rate was 96.1%. Respondents had high proficiency in endourology (97.3%), similar to Canada and European countries. However, they reported a lack of proficiency in laparoscopy (28.9%) and functional urology (26.2%). Also, no one had completed a robotic procedure as first surgeon. A total of 75.2% respondents had no first author publication, and 10.1% had no first author abstract presentation. There was no significant difference between institution types with or without certification. There was a satisfaction rate of 87.2% among participants.

CONCLUSIONS

It was observed that qualified and standardized training could has not been achieved and the positive effects of certification have not been seen yet. There is a lack of modernization in all aspects of education, and there is no standardized curriculum addressing academic research. Therefore, there is a risk that future urologists will have insufficient skills. We hope this study serves as a guide for modernization and standardization in urology training.

The fight between PCNL, laparoscopic and robotic pyelolithotomy: do we have a winner? A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to provide an updated comparison between the currently available minimally invasive approaches (PCNL, laparoscopic [LP] and robotic pyelolithotomy [RP]) for the management of large renal stones.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

An electronic search of the current literature was conducted through the Medline and NCBI PubMed, Embase, Scopus and Cochrane Collaboration Central Register of Controlled Clinical Trials databases in March 2021. Studies about minimally-invasive treatment for kidney stones were considered. Inclusion criteria were: studies evaluating patients with large renal calculi (≥2 cm); the comparison of at least two of the three approaches (PCNL, LP, RP), reporting data suitable for meta-analysis evaluation. Patients with concomitant management for ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJ-O) were excluded.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Overall, 17 reports were considered for qualitative and quantitative synthesis, for a total cohort of 1079 patients, of which 534 with PCNL, 525 treated with LP, and 20 with RP. Of those, 16 compared PCNL with LP, while only 1 study compared LP with RP. PCNL mean operative time was statistically significantly shorter than LP and RP while mean estimated blood loss was statistically significantly higher for PNCL. No statistically significant differences were recorded among the three surgical approaches. Finally, PCNL demonstrated slightly, albeit statistically significant lower stone free rate when compared with LP.

CONCLUSIONS

PCNL, LP and RP may be safely and efficiently used to manage large renal stones. All three procedures showed reasonably low rate of complications with a satisfactory stone clearance rate.

Publication Component of the UK Foundation Programme Application: Perception of Medical Students

INTRODUCTION

The 2-year UK foundation programme (FP) application is based on a scoring system and final year medical students are ranked and allocated to their preferred choice of region to work and train in based on their scores following graduation. Points are allocated to academic components including publications. We aim to evaluate UK medical students' perception of the publication component of the application.

METHODS

A 15-item online survey based on students' perception of the publication component of the FP application was distributed to final year medical students from all UK medical schools. Opinions were sought via a 5-point Likert scale.

RESULTS

A total of 155 final year medical students from 9 medical schools completed the survey (response rate 155/1926, 8.05%). In the survey, 69.7% of students felt under pressure to achieve PubMed-indexed (PMI) publications, 7.1% were not aware that the FP application included points for PMI publications and 72.9% had no publications at the time of application. The main reasons for publishing were for the FP application (81.3% agreed) and to increase competitiveness for future specialty training (85.0% agreed). In contrast, 27.1% agreed that they were motivated to publish due to disseminating knowledge; 22.6% and 25.8% agreed that their medical school did not provide adequate training or opportunities for them to achieve PMI publications, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The majority of students felt under pressure to publish with their primary motivation cited as enhancing their FP application. Overall training and opportunities to publish appear to be inadequate amongst the cohort studied. Medical schools should consider providing academic training and opportunities early to highlight the importance and rationale behind research/audits, minimise pressure and optimise research outputs in preparation for FP application.

COVID-19's Impact on Italian Urology

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.

Endourology (Lithiasis). Management, surgical considerations and follow-up of patients in the COVID-19 era

PURPOSE

To provide recommendations on the endourological management of lithiasis in the scenario of the COVID-19 pandemic.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A non-systematic review in PubMed and the grey literature, as well as recommendations by a panel of stakeholders was made, regarding management, surgical considerations and follow-up of patients affected by lithiasis in the COVID-19 era.

RESULTS

Under the current outbreak and COVID-19 pandemic scenario, patients affected by lithiasis should be prioritized into low, intermediate and high risk categories, to decide their delay and save resources, healthcare personnel, beds and ventilators. However, patients with potentially serious septic complications need emergency interventions. The possibility of performing or restarting elective activity depends on local conditions, the availability of beds and ventilators, and the implementation of screening protocols in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Delaying lithiasis surgery and increasing waiting lists will have consequences and will require considerable additional effort. Teleconsultation may be useful in guiding these patients, reducing visits and unnecessary exposure.

CONCLUSIONS

categorization and prioritization of patients affected by lithiasis is crucial for management, surgical selection and follow-up. Protocols, measures and additional efforts should be carried out in the current situation of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Urologic surgery in a safe hospital during the COVID-19 pandemic scenario

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic induced a global emergency that overwhelmed most hospitals around the world. Access to hospitals has been restricted to selective oncological and urgent patients to minimize surgeries requiring Intensive Care Unit care. All other kind of non-urgent and benign surgeries have been rescheduled. The burden of oncological and urgent cases on the healthcare system has increased.

METHODS

We have been asked to become the referral center for major oncological and urgent urological surgeries, increasing our surgical volume. Through meticulous hospital protocols on PPE, use of nasopharyngeal swabs, controlled hospital access and the prompt management of suspected/positive cases, we were able to perform 31% more urological surgical procedures during the COVID-19 pandemic compared to the same period in 2019.

RESULTS

We observed a 72% increase in oncological surgical procedures and 150% in urgent procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

Our experience shows how the management of oncological and urgent cases can be maintained during unexpected, global emergencies, such as COVID-19.