Aim The aims of this research were to analyze the urological literature published during the COVID-19 pandemic and to guide future research. Material and methods Between 2019 and 2021, the Web of Science (WoS) All Databases collection was searched for publications related to COVID-19 and Urology. The keywords used during this search were coronavirus-19, COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, novel coronavirus, 2019-nCoV, pandemic, and/or urology. The top 50 cited (T50) publications were also identified and summarized. Exported Microsoft Excel files, Visualization of Similarities viewer (VOSviewer) software, and descriptive assessment were used for bibliometric and statistical analyses of the publications. Results In total, 582 publications related to COVID-19 and urology were identified. In these publications, the most active author, journal, country, and organization were Francesco Porpiglia, European Urology, the United States of America (USA), and La Paz University Hospital, respectively. The most commonly used keywords were telemedicine-telehealth, SARS-CoV-2, coronavirus, pandemic, residency, testicle, semen, kidney transplantation, endourology, and surgery. The most worrying issues in the articles are the negative impact of COVID-19 on resident training and permanent damage to urological organs. Conclusions We analyzed all the articles related to COVID-19 and urology published to date in the WoS All Databases collection. The most commonly published articles were based on clinical and outpatient practice, telemedicine, residency training, transplantation, and testicles. The long-term adverse effects of the pandemic on urology practice and especially urological organs will need to be assessed further in future research.

In longitudinal and cross-sectional studies, depression and anxiety have been associated with urinary incontinence (UI) in women. However, this association has not been studied in men. Utilizing data from the 2008 Turkish Health Studies Survey conducted by the Turkish Statistical Institute, we analyzed 13,830 participants aged 15 years and above. We investigated the association of UI with psychological discomfort in both sexes using multivariable logistic regression. High psychological discomfort significantly correlated with UI in males (OR 2.30, 95% CI 1.43–3.71) and females (OR 2.78, 95% CI 1.80–4.29). Anxiety increased UI likelihood in females (OR 2.36, 95% CI 1.61–3.46) and males (OR 2.37, 95% CI 1.10–5.13). Depression related significantly to UI in females (OR 2.54, 95% CI 1.81–3.58) but not males (OR 1.63, 95% CI 0.71–3.76). Antidepressant and anxiolytic use was not significantly related to UI in either gender. Anxiety and psychological discomfort contribute to UI in both genders. While depression significantly correlates with UI in females, it does not show the same magnitude and significance in males. Antidepressant and anxiolytic use did not significantly influence the association. These findings underscore the psychological distress-UI link, advocating a holistic approach for managing UI in individuals with mental health conditions.

Background/Objectives: LUTS and voiding dysfunctions are prevalent in urology clinics, with uroflowmetry and IPSS as the prevailing diagnostic methods. Nevertheless, objective assessment can be constrained by age, gender, and variability in the test conditions. Portable (home) uroflowmetry addresses these limitations, allowing for more natural urinary flow recordings beyond clinic confines. This study aims to characterize spontaneous voiding patterns in healthcare professionals, exploring gender differences, variability in repeated measurements, and correlations among voiding parameters, IPSS, age, and BMI. Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted during the SIU 43rd Congress in Istanbul using smart uroflow devices such as the Oruba Oruflow Uroflow Recorder, which were installed in public toilets. A total of 431 healthcare professionals participated by providing demographic information and completing the IPSS questionnaire. The data analysis included uroflowmetric parameters such as maximum flow rate (Q_max), average flow rate (Q_ave), and voided volume (VV), in addition to IPSS and demographic data to assess the possible associations with IPSS, age, BMI, and gender differences. Results: Of the participants, 76% were male and 24% female, with a higher prevalence of LUTS in women. Despite no significant gender difference in voided volume, men with lower volumes demonstrated more severe LUTS. Notably, women exhibited higher Q_max and Q_ave rates irrespective of their IPSS scores, contrasting with men whose flow rates declined with age and LUTS severity. In men, the total IPSS score was inversely associated with uroflowmetric performance, particularly impacting voiding symptoms over storage symptoms. Repeated measurements revealed noteworthy variability in Q_max and VV, without any influence from gender, BMI, age, or symptom severity. Conclusions: Our findings highlight the importance of gender-specific considerations in evaluating voiding complaints through uroflowmetry and IPSS. The significant variability observed in repeated uroflowmetry studies underlines the need for multiple measurements. Overall, this research emphasizes the significance of portable (home) uroflowmetry and calls for a reassessment of normal voiding standards in (non) clinical settings.

Purpose It is reported that surgical procedures performed during the COVID-19 pandemic are accompanied by high complications and risks. In this study, the urological interventions applied with appropriate infrastructure and protocols during the pandemic in the pandemic hospital that is carrying out the COVID-19 struggle are analyzed. Methods Urological interventions were reviewed in the 5-week period between March 11 and April 16. The distribution of outpatient and interventional procedures was determined by weeks concurrently along with the COVID-19 patient workload, and data in the country, subgroups were further analyzed. Patients intervened were divided into four groups as Emergency, High, Intermediate, and Low Priority cases according to the EAU recommendations. The COVID-19-related findings were recorded; staff and patient effects were reported. Results Of the 160 interventions, 65 were minimally invasive or open surgical intervention, 95 were non-surgical outpatient intervention, and the outpatient admission was 777. According to the priority level, 33 cases had emergency and high priority, 32 intermediate and low priority. COVID-19 quarantine and follow-up were performed at least 1 week in 22 (33.8%) operated patients at the last week, 43 (66.2%) patients who were operated in the previous 4 weeks followed up at least 2 weeks. No postoperative complications were encountered in any patient due to COVID-19 during the postoperative period. Conclusion In the COVID-19 pandemic, precautions, isolation, and algorithms are required to avoid disruption in the intervention and follow-up of urology patients; priority urological interventions should not be disrupted in the presence of necessary experience and infrastructure.

Objective: The aim of this study is to compare the effects of COVID-19 on urology practice using pre- and post-pandemic data of a pandemic hospital. Material and methods: March 11 is considered as the beginning of COVID-19 and, changes in the number of the outpatient clinic examinations, non-surgical procedures, and surgery in the 8-week period before and during the pandemic were evaluated by weeks. Age, gender, and comorbid diseases of the operated patients were compared statistically. The symptoms, complaints, mortality, and morbidity conditions of the patients were recorded by contacting them. Descriptive data and chi-square test were used. Results: The number of COVID-19 cases has been reported as 8,916 for the hospital, 88,412 for the city and 150,593 for the country. The mean age of the operated patients before and after 11 March was 51 and 47, and comorbidities were 79 and 40, respectively, and there was no statistically significant difference(p<0.05). The number of patients examined was 2,309 and 868, the number of operated patients 173 and 94, the number of patients undergoing non-surgical procedures were 371 and 174, respectively. The names and numbers of surgical and non-surgical procedures are listed according to European Association of Urology (EAU) priority classification. In follow-up, no complication because of COVID-19 was observed in any patient. Conclusion: Our study showed that, although the numbers have decreased, similar operations can be performed in daily urology practice without any contamination and mortality during the pandemic compared to the prepandemic period, by taking precautions and following the algorithms. Cite this article as: Soytaş M, Boz MY, Güzelburç V, Çalık G, Horuz R, Akbulut Z, et al. Comparison of before and after COVID-19 urology practices of a pandemic hospital. Turk J Urol 2020; 46(6): 474-80.