Search

Objective: To evaluate the impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, on operating room (OR) efficiency for urologic procedures using the concept of fixed OR times. Patients and Methods: Over a 24-month period, urology OR data were prospectively collected. Operations were divided into fixed and variable time points. The fixed OR times were in-roomw to anesthesia-release time, anesthesia-release to cut time, in-room to cut time, and close to wheels-out time. Data from January 1, 2019, to December 31, 2019, were pre-COVID-19 data, and data from April 1, 2020, to December 31, 2020, were post-COVID-19 data. Operations were grouped into endoscopic, implant, major open, and robotic-assisted cases. In the post-COVID-19 era, all patients had a negative polymerase chain reaction test result within 48 hours of operation. The Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to compare the fixed OR times between the pre- and post-COVID-19 eras. Results: A total of 3189 procedures were evaluated: 2058 endoscopic operations (1124 in the pre-COVID-19 era and 934 in the post-COVID-19 era), 343 implant procedures (192 in the pre-COVID-19 era and 151 in the post-COVID-19 era), 222 major open procedures (119 in the pre-COVID-19 era and 103 in the post-COVID-19 era), and 566 robotic-assisted procedures (338 in the pre-COVID-19 era and 228 in the post-COVID-19 era). There were no fixed OR times in any of the examined groups that were negatively impacted by COVID-19. The percentage of the total OR time occupied by fixed OR variables in the pre-COVID-19 era was 40.6% for endoscopic operations, 41.1% for implant procedures, 29.8% for major open procedures, and 21.8% for robotic-assisted procedures. Conclusion: A substantial portion of the total OR time includes fixed time points. Furthermore, COVID-19 did not have a negative impact on fixed OR times in a negative testing environment. Urologic OR efficiency should be maintained in the post-COVID-19 era.

Purpose: Previously published studies have shown small prostate size, capsular perforation and intraoperative bladder distension are associated with failed trial without a catheter (TWOC) after HoLEP. The study objective was to determine the relationship between MOSES pulse modulation versus standard laser technology and short-term catheter reinsertion following failed TWOC. Materials and Methods: The study included 487 patients who underwent HoLEP, using standard holmium laser settings (180 patients) or MOSES pulse modulation (255 patients), between August 2018 and February 2021. Catheter reinsertion defined as reinsertion following failed TWOC within 30 days of surgery. Association of pulse modulation with catheter reinsertion was examined using single and multivariable logistic regression models. Comparisons of pre and intraoperative characteristics between patients treated without and with pulse modulation were made using a Wilcoxon rank sum test for numeric characteristics or Fisher’s exact test for categorical characteristics. Results: Short-term catheter reinsertion occurred in 14% (26/180) of the standard laser setting group as compared with 10% (24/252) of the pulse modulation group. There was no statistically significant association with short-term catheter reinsertion in single (unadjusted OR [standard settings vs. pulse modulation], 1.60; 95% CI, 0.80–2.91; p=0.12) or multivariable analysis adjusting for specimen weight and operative time (adjusted OR [standard settings vs. pulse modulation], 1.44; 95% CI, 0.77–2.68; p=0.25). Conclusions: In this study, we found no association between post-HoLEP short-term catheter reinsertion following failed TWOC and MOSES pulse modulation. Although MOSES pulse modulation offers several well-documented advantages, catheter reinsertion events appear to be attributable to other factors.

Few series exist in the literature of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) after prostatic urethral lift (PUL). Even less well known are potential complications seen after a patient undergoes PUL followed by HoLEP. We present our case of a unique clinical finding of a PUL clip and suture found in the urethra of a patient after HoLEP.