Rules and regulations for a pregnant endourologist: the European perspective

Introduction Working in surgery while pregnant is challenging. Navigating this period safely is of paramount importance. Anecdotal observation suggests that there exists great variation among European nations in regard to maternity leave and radiation safety. The aim of this article was to gain insight into policy patterns and variations across Europe regarding these issues. Methods A series of core question items was distributed to representatives across 12 nations Austria, Belgium, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Republic of Ireland, Spain and the United Kingdom). Results The total number of weeks with full pay ranged from as little as 4 weeks in Belgium to 32 and Iceland. All countries included in this study give the option of additional weeks beyond the initial period, however at reduced pay. Some offer unpaid leave beyond this. Only 5/12 countries had a specific policy on when the pregnant surgeon should come off the on-call rota. Only Austria, Italy and Poland stipulate a requirement for the pregnant clinician to be replaced or be completely exempt in cases involving radiation. Only Germany, Iceland, Norway and Poland highlight the need to limit radiation dose in the first trimester. Beyond this, Germany alone provides written guidance for reduction in gown weight and along with Poland, display arguably the most forward-thinking approach to resting. Conclusion There is a marked range in maternal leave policies across Europe. There also exists a lack of universal guidance on radiation safety for the pregnant urologist. There is urgent need for this void to be addressed.publishedVersio

Patient’s Desire and Real Availability Concerning Supportive Measures Accompanying Radical Prostatectomy: Differences between Certified Prostate Cancer Centers and Non-Certified Centers Based on Patient-Reported Outcomes within the Cross-Sectional Study Improve

Simple Summary This German multicenter study investigated the importance of different supportive measures offered to patients with prostate cancer who undergo surgery (radical prostatectomy). A number of these supportive measures are required during the certification of a urologic hospital as prostate cancer center. However, a broad scientific basis evaluating these measures from the patient’s perspective is still lacking. In this study, patients were asked to rate the relevance of several supportive measures and to estimate the effective availability of these different supportive measures at their urologic clinic about 15 months after surgery. Our study highlights that only six of fifteen different supportive measures were rated as very relevant by patients. None of these six supportive measures were offered more intensively at the certified clinics compared to the non-certified clinics according to the patients. Our study helps to identify those supportive measures with the highest subjective impact on patients in this setting. Abstract Certification as a prostate cancer center requires the offer of several supportive measures to patients undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP). However, it remains unclear how patients estimate the relevance of these measures and whether the availability of these measures differs between certified prostate cancer centers (CERTs) and non-certified centers (NCERTs). In 20 German urologic centers, a survey comprising questions on the relevance of 15 supportive measures was sent to 1000 patients at a median of 15 months after RP. Additionally, patients were asked to rate the availability of these measures using a four-item Likert scale. The aim of this study was to compare these ratings between CERTs and NCERTs. The response rate was 75.0%. In total, 480 patients underwent surgery in CERTs, and 270 in NCERTs. Patients rated 6/15 supportive measures as very relevant: preoperative medical counselling concerning treatment options, a preoperative briefing answering last questions, preoperative pelvic floor exercises (PFEs), postoperative PFEs, postoperative social support, and postoperative rehabilitation addressing physical fitness recovery. These ratings showed no significant difference between CERTs and NCERTs (p = 0.133–0.676). In addition, 4/9 of the remaining criteria were rated as more detailed by patients in CERTs. IMPROVE represents the first study worldwide to evaluate a patient-reported assessment of the supportive measures accompanying RP. Pertinent offers vary marginally between CERTs and NCERTs

Rules and regulations for a pregnant endourologist: the European perspective

Introduction Working in surgery while pregnant is challenging. Navigating this period safely is of paramount importance. Anecdotal observation suggests that there exists great variation among European nations in regard to maternity leave and radiation safety. The aim of this article was to gain insight into policy patterns and variations across Europe regarding these issues. Methods A series of core question items was distributed to representatives across 12 nations Austria, Belgium, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Republic of Ireland, Spain and the United Kingdom). Results The total number of weeks with full pay ranged from as little as 4 weeks in Belgium to 32 and Iceland. All countries included in this study give the option of additional weeks beyond the initial period, however at reduced pay. Some offer unpaid leave beyond this. Only 5/12 countries had a specific policy on when the pregnant surgeon should come off the on-call rota. Only Austria, Italy and Poland stipulate a requirement for the pregnant clinician to be replaced or be completely exempt in cases involving radiation. Only Germany, Iceland, Norway and Poland highlight the need to limit radiation dose in the first trimester. Beyond this, Germany alone provides written guidance for reduction in gown weight and along with Poland, display arguably the most forward-thinking approach to resting. Conclusion There is a marked range in maternal leave policies across Europe. There also exists a lack of universal guidance on radiation safety for the pregnant urologist. There is urgent need for this void to be addressed

Rules and regulations for a pregnant endourologist: the European perspective

Introduction Working in surgery while pregnant is challenging. Navigating this period safely is of paramount importance. Anecdotal observation suggests that there exists great variation among European nations in regard to maternity leave and radiation safety. The aim of this article was to gain insight into policy patterns and variations across Europe regarding these issues. Methods A series of core question items was distributed to representatives across 12 nations Austria, Belgium, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Republic of Ireland, Spain and the United Kingdom). Results The total number of weeks with full pay ranged from as little as 4 weeks in Belgium to 32 and Iceland. All countries included in this study give the option of additional weeks beyond the initial period, however at reduced pay. Some offer unpaid leave beyond this. Only 5/12 countries had a specific policy on when the pregnant surgeon should come off the on-call rota. Only Austria, Italy and Poland stipulate a requirement for the pregnant clinician to be replaced or be completely exempt in cases involving radiation. Only Germany, Iceland, Norway and Poland highlight the need to limit radiation dose in the first trimester. Beyond this, Germany alone provides written guidance for reduction in gown weight and along with Poland, display arguably the most forward-thinking approach to resting. Conclusion There is a marked range in maternal leave policies across Europe. There also exists a lack of universal guidance on radiation safety for the pregnant urologist. There is urgent need for this void to be addressed

Corrigendum to "RPN (Radius, Position of tumour, iNvasion of renal sinus) Classification and Nephrometry Scoring System: An Internationally Developed Clinical Classification To Describe the Surgical Difficulty for Renal Masses for Which Robotic Partial Nephrectomy Is Planned" [Eur. Urol. Open Sci. 54 (2023) 33-42].

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1016/j.euros.2023.05.007.]

Patients Regret Their Choice of Therapy Significantly Less Frequently after Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy as Opposed to Open Radical Prostatectomy: Patient-Reported Results of the Multicenter Cross-Sectional IMPROVE Study

Patient’s regret (PatR) concerning the choice of therapy represents a crucial endpoint for treatment evaluation after radical prostatectomy (RP) for prostate cancer (PCA). This study aims to compare PatR following robot-assisted (RARP) and open surgical approach (ORP). A survey comprising perioperative-functional criteria was sent to 1000 patients in 20 German centers at a median of 15 months after RP. Surgery-related items were collected from participating centers. To calculate PatR differences between approaches, a multivariate regressive base model (MVBM) was established incorporating surgical approach and demographic, center-specific, and tumor-specific criteria not primarily affected by surgical approach. An extended model (MVEM) was further adjusted by variables potentially affected by surgical approach. PatR was based on five validated questions ranging 0–100 (cutoff >15 defined as critical PatR). The response rate was 75.0%. After exclusion of patients with laparoscopic RP or stage M1b/c, the study cohort comprised 277/365 ORP/RARP patients. ORP/RARP patients had a median PatR of 15/10 (p 15, respectively (p 15 relative 46.8% less frequently (p < 0.001). Consensual decision making regarding surgical approach independently reduced PatR. With the MVEM, the independent impact of both surgical approach and of consensual decision making was confirmed. This study involving centers of different care levels showed significantly lower PatR following RARP

Patients Regret Their Choice of Therapy Significantly Less Frequently after Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy as Opposed to Open Radical Prostatectomy: Patient-Reported Results of the Multicenter Cross-Sectional IMPROVE Study

Simple Summary This multicenter study investigated the extent of patient’s decision regret (PatR) in patients with prostate cancer comparing different surgical modalities. Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy has replaced open radical prostatectomy as the surgical standard of care in many countries worldwide. However, a broad scientific basis evaluating the difference in patient-relevant outcomes between both approaches is still lacking. In this context, PatR is increasingly moving into the scientific focus. Our study shows a critical PatR in slightly more than one third of patients about 15 months after surgery. Patients who underwent robot-assisted surgery, and also patients without postoperative urinary stress incontinence, report significantly lower PatR. Likewise, this difference was also demonstrated for patients who decided together with their treating physician on the specific surgical procedure (consensual decision making). Our study helps to further establish PatR as an important endpoint in the setting of radical prostatectomy and identifies criteria which may be addressed to reduce PatR. Abstract Patient’s regret (PatR) concerning the choice of therapy represents a crucial endpoint for treatment evaluation after radical prostatectomy (RP) for prostate cancer (PCA). This study aims to compare PatR following robot-assisted (RARP) and open surgical approach (ORP). A survey comprising perioperative-functional criteria was sent to 1000 patients in 20 German centers at a median of 15 months after RP. Surgery-related items were collected from participating centers. To calculate PatR differences between approaches, a multivariate regressive base model (MVBM) was established incorporating surgical approach and demographic, center-specific, and tumor-specific criteria not primarily affected by surgical approach. An extended model (MVEM) was further adjusted by variables potentially affected by surgical approach. PatR was based on five validated questions ranging 0–100 (cutoff >15 defined as critical PatR). The response rate was 75.0%. After exclusion of patients with laparoscopic RP or stage M1b/c, the study cohort comprised 277/365 ORP/RARP patients. ORP/RARP patients had a median PatR of 15/10 (p 15, respectively (p 15 relative 46.8% less frequently (p < 0.001). Consensual decision making regarding surgical approach independently reduced PatR. With the MVEM, the independent impact of both surgical approach and of consensual decision making was confirmed. This study involving centers of different care levels showed significantly lower PatR following RARP

Patients Regret Their Choice of Therapy Significantly Less Frequently after Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy as Opposed to Open Radical Prostatectomy: Patient-Reported Results of the Multicenter Cross-Sectional IMPROVE Study

Simple Summary This multicenter study investigated the extent of patient's decision regret (PatR) in patients with prostate cancer comparing different surgical modalities. Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy has replaced open radical prostatectomy as the surgical standard of care in many countries worldwide. However, a broad scientific basis evaluating the difference in patient-relevant outcomes between both approaches is still lacking. In this context, PatR is increasingly moving into the scientific focus. Our study shows a critical PatR in slightly more than one third of patients about 15 months after surgery. Patients who underwent robot-assisted surgery, and also patients without postoperative urinary stress incontinence, report significantly lower PatR. Likewise, this difference was also demonstrated for patients who decided together with their treating physician on the specific surgical procedure (consensual decision making). Our study helps to further establish PatR as an important endpoint in the setting of radical prostatectomy and identifies criteria which may be addressed to reduce PatR. Patient's regret (PatR) concerning the choice of therapy represents a crucial endpoint for treatment evaluation after radical prostatectomy (RP) for prostate cancer (PCA). This study aims to compare PatR following robot-assisted (RARP) and open surgical approach (ORP). A survey comprising perioperative-functional criteria was sent to 1000 patients in 20 German centers at a median of 15 months after RP. Surgery-related items were collected from participating centers. To calculate PatR differences between approaches, a multivariate regressive base model (MVBM) was established incorporating surgical approach and demographic, center-specific, and tumor-specific criteria not primarily affected by surgical approach. An extended model (MVEM) was further adjusted by variables potentially affected by surgical approach. PatR was based on five validated questions ranging 0-100 (cutoff >15 defined as critical PatR). The response rate was 75.0%. After exclusion of patients with laparoscopic RP or stage M1b/c, the study cohort comprised 277/365 ORP/RARP patients. ORP/RARP patients had a median PatR of 15/10 (p 15, respectively (p 15 relative 46.8% less frequently (p < 0.001). Consensual decision making regarding surgical approach independently reduced PatR. With the MVEM, the independent impact of both surgical approach and of consensual decision making was confirmed. This study involving centers of different care levels showed significantly lower PatR following RARP