Search

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic drastically reduced opportunities for surgical skill sharing between high-income and low to middle-income countries. Augmented reality (AR) technology allows mentors in one country to virtually train a mentee in another country during surgical cases without international travel. We hypothesize that AR technology is an effective live surgical training and mentorship modality. METHODS: Three senior urologic surgeons in the US and UK worked with four urologic surgeon trainees across the continent of Africa using AR systems. Trainers and trainees individually completed post-operative questionnaires evaluating their experience. RESULTS: Trainees rated the quality of virtual training as equivalent to in-person training in 83% of cases (N = 5 of 6 responses). Trainers reported the technologys visual quality as acceptable in 67% of cases (N = 12 of 18 responses). The audiovisual capabilities of the technology had a high impact in the majority of the cases. CONCLUSION: AR technology can effectively facilitate surgical training when in-person training is limited or unavailable.

The medical and surgical management of kidney stones is one of the most common functions of the urologist. Management choices are often nuanced, involving the decision to embark on one surgical plan among several options. As the wider medical community critically evaluates the care we provide to an increasingly diverse population, it will be important to examine patient outcomes with a particular focus on ensuring equitable care. This review examines the influence of social parameters on the care of kidney stone patients. The dearth of literature in this area warrants rigorous studies on the relationship between race as well as socioeconomic status and the management of kidney stone disease.

PurposeWe present an overview of the literature regarding the use of MRI in active surveillance of prostate cancer.MethodsBoth MEDLINE® and Cochrane Library were queried up to May 2020 for studies of men on active surveillance with MRI and later confirmatory biopsy. The terms studied were 'prostate cancer' as the anchor followed by two of the following: active surveillance, surveillance, active monitoring, MRI, NMR, magnetic resonance imaging,  MRI, and multiparametric MRI. Studies were excluded if pathologic reclassification (GG1 →  ≥ GG2) and PI-RADS or equivalent was not reported.ResultsWithin active surveillance, baseline MRI is effective for identifying clinically significant prostate cancer and thus associated with fewer reclassification events. A positive initial MRI (≥ PI-RADS 3) with GG1 identified at biopsy has a positive predictive value (PPV) of 35-40% for reclassification by 3 years. MRI possessed a stronger negative predictive value, with a negative MRI (≤ PI-RADS 2) yielding a negative predictive value of up to 85% at 3 years. Surveillance MRI, obtained after initial biopsy, yielded a PPV of 11-65% and NPV of 85-95% for reclassification.ConclusionMRI is useful for initial risk stratification of prostate cancer in men on active surveillance, especially if MRI is negative when imaging is obtained during surveillance. While useful, MRI cannot replace biopsy and further research is necessary to fully integrate MRI into active surveillance.