The impact of COVID-19 on urology office visits and adoption of telemedicine services

Ureteric stenting outside of the operation theatre: challenges and opportunities

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the safety, efficacy, tolerability, and cost-effectiveness of bedside or office-based ureteric stent insertion.

METHODS

Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses-Protocols (PRISMA-P) and A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2 guidelines, we searched PubMed/the Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), the Excerpta Medica dataBASE (EMBASE), Google Scholar, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Dimensions for English-language studies from 1978 to April 2023. Inclusion criteria focused on primary ureteric stent placements outside of the operating theatre (OT).

RESULTS

A total of 15 studies involving 2072 stents were included. Success rates for correctly positioned stents in bedside or office-based insertions ranged from 60% to 95.8%, with most studies reporting ≥80% success rates. Common failure reasons included impacted stones and difficulty identifying the ureteric orifice. Pain and tolerability were assessed using various methods, with validated tools indicating moderate pain levels, but most patients would undergo the procedure again under local anaesthesia. Complication rates were generally low, with minor complications such as haematuria or postoperative fever being the most common. Procedural costs were significantly lower in non-OT settings, with estimates indicating savings of up to four-fold.

CONCLUSION

Bedside or office-based ureteric stent insertion is a viable alternative to OT procedures, offering high success rates, manageable pain levels, low complication rates, and substantial cost savings. This approach is particularly advantageous in settings with limited OT access, highlighting its potential for broader adoption in urological practice. Future research should focus on standardising pain assessment methods and randomised studies.

Evaluation of fear, willingness to seek care, and healthcare delivery preferences for patients with nephrolithiasis during the COVID-19 pandemic

Background

Although minimal is known about coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)'s impact on patient healthcare perceptions, improved understanding can guide healthcare providers to adequately address patient concerns. This cross-sectional study investigated how fear induced by COVID-19 impacted nephrolithiasis patients' perceptions, decision-making, and preferences for care delivery.

Methods

Utilizing the validated Fear of COVID-19 Scale (FCV-19S), patients were surveyed at a single stone clinic during part of the COVID-19 pandemic, 03/2021-04/2022. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), Chi-square tests, and multinomial logistic regression evaluated the effect of sociodemographics on responses.

Results

Two hundred and four surveys were completed. Mean age was 58±16 years, and 112 (54.9%) were women. Mean FCV-19S was 14.8±5.8 points (range, 7-33). Women and non-Caucasian races were associated with higher fear scores (P<0.01 and P=0.01 respectively). Stone prevention effort was not associated with fear (P=0.38). Poorer self-assessed health status was associated with increased stone prevention efforts (P=0.04). Preference for in-person care was reported in 89% of patients. Willingness to seek care varied by age and education, with decreased likelihood to seek care for middle-aged patients (P=0.04) and increased education (P=0.01).

Conclusions

Perceived fear during the COVID-19 pandemic was highly variable in nephrolithiasis patients, with higher fear scores in women and non-Caucasians. Willingness to seek care during the pandemic varied with age, education level, symptom severity, COVID-19 fear, current stone status, and health status. Stone patients greatly preferred in-person medical care over telemedicine during COVID-19. Future studies are needed to further evaluate these health disparities, discrepancies in fear, and comfort in seeking stone-related healthcare to help us better inform health policymakers and provide patient-centered care.

Will you go the distance? A satisfaction survey of telemedicine in sexual medicine

Background

The success of telemedicine depends on patient satisfaction with the care that they receive, which is impacted by the ease of use of the technology, quality of the connection, and perceived effectiveness of care.

Aim

The study sought to evaluate patient satisfaction with telemedicine services in a high-volume andrology clinic.

Methods

We included all patients who had a telemedicine appointment between January 1, 2020, and August 22, 2022. Demographic information was gathered, and a satisfaction survey was conducted using REDCap software. Data were grouped into 2 age categories, with ≥50 years as the cutoff (19-50 years; >50 years). The data were analyzed according to age, distance from the patient's home to our center, and survey responses. Pearson's chi-square test and ordinal logistic regression analyses were performed.

Outcomes

The main outcome is satisfaction with telemedicine in a men's sexual health context.

Results

A total of 4071 patients were identified based on attending a telemedicine visit. Hypogonadism was the most common diagnosis. Other diagnoses included erectile dysfunction, varicocele, Peyronie's disease, vasectomy, and infertility. In total, 613 patients completed the survey, with a mean age of 56.6 years. Older patients were less likely to prefer telemedicine (odds ratio [OR], 0.55; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.36-0.80; P < .001), less likely to agree to a video visit because of privacy concerns (OR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.35-0.75; P < .001), and less likely to recommend a telemedicine visit compared with their younger counterparts (OR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.27-0.51; P < .001). The median distance was 22.4 (interquartile range, 7.5-57.5) miles. However, there was no significant association between distance and patients' likelihood of preferring telehealth visits, including reviews of outside laboratories and imaging (OR, 1; 95% CI, 0.99-1; P = .35), belief in the quality of care provided via video visits (OR, 0.99, CI 0.99-1; P = .25), and overall preference for telehealth visits (OR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.99-1; P = .35).

Clinical Implications

Healthcare providers should consider the age of patients when deciding to offer telemedicine while addressing privacy concerns to provide adequate reassurance to patients who may have concerns about the quality of care provided through telemedicine.

Strengths and Limitations

Our study achieved a substantial sample size that reached statistical significance. Conducted at a single academic center, our study was constrained, possibly introducing biases related to the institution's advanced telemedicine system. Geographic and diagnostic limitations could lead to regional biases, affecting the generalizability of the findings.

Conclusion

Older patients exhibited a lower inclination toward preferring telemedicine, along with decreased odds of endorsing in-person visits.

Natural History of Patients with Prostate MRI Likert 1-3 and Development of RosCaP: a Multivariate Risk Score for Clinically Significant Cancer

INTRODUCTION

Clinically significant prostate cancer (csCaP) with Gleason ≥3 + 4 is found in 10% negative prebiopsy multiparametric (mp) MRI cases and varies widely for equivocal mpMRI cases. The objective of this study was to investigate long-term outcomes of patients with negative and equivocal mpMRIs and to develop a predictive score for csCaP risk stratification in this group.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients who underwent an upfront mpMRI between May 2015 and March 2018 with an MRI score Likert 1 to 3 were included in the study. Patients had either a CaP diagnosis at MRI-targeted biopsy or were not diagnosed and attended follow-up in the community. Outcomes were analysed through the Kaplan-Meier estimator and Cox Model. Regression coefficients of significant variables were used to develop a Risk of significant Cancer of the Prostate score (RosCaP).

RESULTS

At first assessment 281/469 patients had mpMRI only and 188/469 mpMRI and biopsy, 26 csCaP were found at biopsy, including 10/26 in Likert 3 patients. 12/371 patients discharged without CaP after first assessment were diagnosed with csCaP during a median of 34.2 months' follow-up, 11/12 diagnosis occurred in patients omitting initial biopsy. csCaP diagnosis-free survival was 95.7% in the MRI group and 99.1% in the biopsy group. From these outcomes, a continuous RosCaP score was developed: RosCaP = 0.083 x Age - 0.202 x (1/PSA Density) + 0.786 (if Likert 3), and 4 risk classes were proposed. Limitations include retrospective design and absence of external validation.

CONCLUSION

Age, PSA Density and MRI Likert score were significantly associated to the risk of csCaP and utilised to devise the novel RosCap predictive score focused to support risk assessment in patients with negative or equivocal mpMRI results.

Utilization of Virtual Consultations in Facial Plastic Surgery during the COVID-19 Pandemic

Background The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic affected many aspects of medical practice, particularly surgical fields. The American College of Surgery initially recommended the cancellation of all elective procedures. As a result, virtual consultations (VCs; a form of telemedicine), became widely used in the field of facial plastic and reconstructive surgery. With more facial plastic and reconstructive surgeons (FPRS) conducting both in-person and virtual visits, it is imperative to understand how VCs are utilized in practice.

Methods An electronic, anonymous survey was distributed to 1,282 electronic mail addresses in the 2018 American Academy of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery directory. The survey collected responses on various topics including demographic information and past, current, and future use of VCs.

Results The survey yielded 84 responses. Most surgeons (66.7%) were 11+ years out of fellowship. There was a significant increase in the percentage of VCs scheduled after the pandemic than before (p = 0.03). FPRS most frequently responded that VCs should always be followed by an in-person visit (48.6%). A majority of FPRS (66.2%) believe that VCs have improved the delivery of health care in at least some cases. Almost all FPRS (86.5%) plan on using VCs after the pandemic.

Conclusion Since the pandemic, VCs are more frequently used by surgeons and are mostly utilized as an initial patient visit. A majority of FPRS believe that VCs have improved health care in at least some cases, and plan on using VCs after the pandemic.