Purpose: Partial nephrectomy (PN) is the standard treatment for small renal masses, offering effective cancer control while preserving renal function. The adoption of robotic assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) has improved perioperative outcomes, and there is a growing interest in same-day discharge as a strategy to enhance recovery, reduce healthcare costs, and achieve more favourable postoperative outcomes. This review evaluates the current evidence surrounding SDD following RAPN, focusing on perioperative outcomes, patient selection, and evolving surgical practices. Methods: A comprehensive literature search identified seven studies reporting outcomes of SDD RAPN, including a total of 485 patients. The findings suggest that SDD can be implemented safely, with complication, readmission, and emergency department visits similar to those observed in inpatient cohorts. Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols and minimally invasive surgical techniques such as single-port and retroperitoneal approaches, play an important role in facilitating early discharge by reducing postoperative pain, enhancing recovery, and shortening hospital stays. Results: Effective implementation of SDD relies on appropriate patient selection, surgeon experience, and institutional infrastructure. Future directions include refining discharge criteria, standardizing ERAS protocols, and incorporating postoperative tools such as telemedicine and wearable technologies. Conclusion: SDD after RAPN is both feasible and safe in selected patients. Broader adoption will depend on the development of standardized pathways, robust patient selection strategies, and additional research to validate outcomes across clinical settings.

Introduction: Urological conditions significantly impact global health, with increasing demand for urologists in both developed and developing countries. Disparities in access to surgical care between high-income countries (HICs) and low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are evident. Despite advancements in urology, LMIC training programs often follow outdated curricula and traditional methods. Methodology: A comprehensive search strategy identified urology training programs in LMICs using the EduRank website, Google searches, and PubMed. Data were collected from the literature, official documents, and online resources, focusing on variables such as program duration, research requirements, and resident salaries. Results: The analysis revealed significant variability in program structures and requirements across LMICs. Residency training durations ranged from 4 to 6 years, with inconsistent research obligations and resident salaries averaging USD 12,857 annually, with a range from USD 5412 to USD 18,174. Fellowship opportunities were limited, with only a small number of programs achieving international accreditation. Conclusions: This study reveals disparities among urology training programs in LMICs, emphasizing the challenges faced by LMICs in providing comprehensive education. Outdated curricula, limited faculty, and insufficient resources contribute to the variability in training quality within LMICs. To bridge these gaps, there is a pressing need for standardized and locally tailored educational frameworks. Future research should focus on direct comparisons with programs in HICs to develop strategies that improve training opportunities and ensure equitable access to advanced urological education and care worldwide.

Introduction: Urological conditions significantly impact global health, with increasing demand for urologists in both developed and developing countries. Disparities in access to surgical care between high-income countries (HICs) and low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are evident. Despite advancements in urology, LMIC training programs often follow outdated curricula and traditional methods. Methodology: A comprehensive search strategy identified urology training programs in LMICs using the EduRank website, Google searches, and PubMed. Data were collected from literature, official documents, and online resources, focusing on variables such as program duration, research requirements, and resident salaries. Results: The analysis revealed significant variability in program structures and requirements across LMICs. Residency training durations ranged from 4 to 6 years, with inconsistent research obligations and resident salaries averaging $12,857 annually, with a range from 5,412 to 18,174$. Fellowship opportunities were limited, with only a small number of programs achieving international accreditation. Conclusion: The study highlights substantial disparities in urology training between HICs and LMICs. There is an urgent need for standardized and locally tailored training frameworks to enhance the quality of urology education in LMICs. Future research should focus on developing strategies to improve training opportunities, ensuring equitable access to advanced urological care and education globally.