Healthcare professionals (HCPs) on the front lines against COVID-19 may face increased workload and stress. Understanding HCPs’ risk for burnout is critical to supporting HCPs and maintaining the quality of healthcare during the pandemic. To assess exposure, perceptions, workload, and possible burnout of HCPs during the COVID-19 pandemic we conducted a cross-sectional survey. The main outcomes and measures were HCPs’ self-assessment of burnout, indicated by a single item measure of emotional exhaustion, and other experiences and attitudes associated with working during the COVID-19 pandemic. A total of 2,707 HCPs from 60 countries participated in this study. Fifty-one percent of HCPs reported burnout. Burnout was associated with work impacting household activities (RR = 1·57, 95% CI = 1·39–1·78, P<0·001), feeling pushed beyond training (RR = 1·32, 95% CI = 1·20–1·47, P<0·001), exposure to COVID-19 patients (RR = 1·18, 95% CI = 1·05–1·32, P = 0·005), and making life prioritizing decisions (RR = 1·16, 95% CI = 1·02–1·31, P = 0·03). Adequate personal protective equipment (PPE) was protective against burnout (RR = 0·88, 95% CI = 0·79–0·97, P = 0·01). Burnout was higher in high-income countries (HICs) compared to low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) (RR = 1·18; 95% CI = 1·02–1·36, P = 0·018). Burnout is present at higher than previously reported rates among HCPs working during the COVID-19 pandemic and is related to high workload, job stress, and time pressure, and limited organizational support. Current and future burnout among HCPs could be mitigated by actions from healthcare institutions and other governmental and non-governmental stakeholders aimed at potentially modifiable factors, including providing additional training, organizational support, and support for family, PPE, and mental health resources.

Background: Healthcare professionals (HCPs) on the front lines against COVID-19 may face increased workload, and stress. Understanding HCPs risk for burnout is critical to supporting HCPs and maintaining the quality of healthcare during the pandemic. Methods: To assess exposure, perceptions, workload, and possible burnout of HCPs during the COVID-19 pandemic we conducted a cross-sectional survey. The main outcomes and measures were HCPs self-assessment of burnout and other experiences and attitudes associated with working during the COVID-19 pandemic. Findings: A total of 2,707 HCPs from 60 countries participated in this study. Fifty-one percent of HCPs reported burnout. Burnout was associated with work impacting household activities (RR=1.57, 95% CI=1.39-1.78, P<0.001), feeling pushed beyond training (RR=1.32, 95% CI=1.20-1.47, P<0.001), exposure to COVID-19 patients (RR=1.18, 95% CI=1.05-1.32, P=0.005), making life prioritizing decisions (RR=1.16, 95% CI=1.02-1.31, P=0.03). Adequate personal protective equipment (PPE) was protective against burnout (RR=0.88, 95% CI=0.79-0.97, P=0.01). Burnout was higher in high-income countries (HICs) compared to low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) (RR=1.18; 95% CI=1.02-1.36, P=0.018). Interpretation: Burnout is prevalent at higher than previously reported rates among HCPs working during the COVID-19 pandemic and is related to high workload, job stress, and time pressure, and limited organizational support. Current and future burnout among HCPs could be mitigated by actions from healthcare institutions and other governmental and non-governmental stakeholders aimed at potentially modifiable factors, including providing additional training, organizational support, support for family, PPE, and mental health resources. Funding: N/A

Introduction: We sought to determine potential patient reported advantages of the da Vinci single‐port (SP) robotic system for urological procedures compared with the previous model, the da Vinci multiport (MP) system. The SP model utilizes a single 30 to 40 mm incision rather than multiple 5 to 22 mm incisions. This project aims to prospectively investigate the impact of the novel SP system on patient reported cosmetic and psychometric surgical outcomes.Methods: We conducted a prospective study of patients who underwent uro‐oncologic surgery by three urologists at the University of Illinois Chicago from April to November 2021. Study participants completed a Patient Scar Assessment Questionnaire 20 and 90 days post‐procedure. The Patient Scar Assessment Questionnaire is a reliable measure of surgical scars that includes five subscales: Appearance, Symptoms, Consciousness, Satisfaction with Appearance, and Satisfaction with Symptoms. Higher scores represented worse reported outcomes.Results: On Postoperative Day 20, there were 77 responses (53 SP and 24 MP). Patients receiving SP procedures reported more favourable outcomes in terms of appearance, symptoms, consciousness, and pain medication. On Day 90, there were 37 responses (24 SP and 13 MP). Patients receiving SP procedures reported more favourable outcomes in terms of appearance. No significant differences were seen on Day 90 in terms of pain, medication, symptoms, consciousness, or satisfaction.Conclusions: This study demonstrates the superiority of the SP in patient reported cosmetic and pain outcomes on short‐ and long‐term follow‐up after uro‐oncological surgical procedures. Symptomatic and cosmetic advantages are present at the 20 day follow‐up, with better scar appearance being significant 90 days after surgery.

Introduction: In recent years, due to the increasing life expectancy and the growing popularity of nephron sparing strategies (NSS), more elderly and frail patients are undergoing Robotic-Assisted Partial Nephrectomy (RAPN) for the treatment of localized Renal Cell Carcinoma (RCC). A Single Port Approach has demonstrated itself to reduce estimated blood loss (EBL), complication rates, and length of stay (LOS). In the present study, we aim to compare perioperative and postoperative outcomes of SP RAPN and Multi Port (MP) RAPN, with a focus on elderly patients. Materials and Methods: In the study, 293 cN0M0 RCC patients who underwent MP and SP RAPN performed at our institution from 2018 to 2024 were retrospectively reviewed. Clinical, demographic, patient, and tumor characteristics and perioperative variables were assessed across group A (<65 years old) and group B (≥65 years old) patients, as well as MP and SP cohorts. Subsequently, univariate and multivariate regression analyses were carried out, particularly for elderly patients, to evaluate the impact of selected preoperative and perioperative variables on the risk of 30-day postoperative complications. Results: Clinical and demographic characteristics were similar across the MP and SP cohorts of group A and group B. The SP cohort of both group A and group B demonstrated significantly higher rates of extraperitoneal access (75.9% vs. 26.6% for group A, p < 0.001 and 81.8% vs. 26.2% for group B, p < 0.001), shorter median operative times (186 [142.8–222] min vs. 190 [153–238] min for group A, p < 0.001 and 173.5 [143–228] min vs. 206 [178–237] min for group B, p < 0.001), and shorter median LOS (0 [0–1] days vs. 2 [1–3] days for group A, p < 0.001 and 0 [0,1] days vs. 2 [2–4] days for group B, p < 0.001). Moreover, for both groups, an SP approach required significantly longer median ischemia times (21 min [18–31] vs. 20 min [16–24] for group A, p = 0.02 and 24.5 min [20–28] vs. 19.5 min [16–26] for group B, p = 0.03). However, the SP cohort of group B, despite the lower rate of on-clamp procedures (63.4% vs. 90.5%, p = 0.03), demonstrated significantly lower median EBL (50 mL [31–142] vs. 100 mL [50–200], p = 0.03). At multivariate analysis, the SP approach was an independent predictor of lower 30-day postoperative complications (OR: 0.2, 95%CI 0.04–0.9, p = 0.04). Conclusions: In the present study, elderly patients undergoing SP RAPN did not demonstrate higher complication rates, EBL or hospitalization days compared to their younger counterparts. Moreover, an SP approach was found protective for 30-day postoperative complications. Our results suggest that SP RAPN is feasible and safe in older and frailer patients.