• Brian M Shinder, Hiren V Patel, Joshua Sterling, Alexandra L Tabakin, Isaac Y Kim, Thomas L Jang, and Eric A Singer.
• Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey and Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, NJ.
• Urol. Oncol. 2020 Jul 1; 38 (7): 609-614.

AbstractThe Coronavirus Disease 2019 pandemic placed urologic surgeons, and especially urologic oncologists, in an unprecedented situation. Providers and healthcare systems were forced to rapidly create triage schemas in order to preserve resources and reduce potential viral transmission while continuing to provide care for patients. We reviewed United States and international triage proposals from professional societies, peer-reviewed publications, and publicly available institutional guidelines to identify common themes and critical differences. To date, there are varying levels of agreement on the optimal triaging of urologic oncology cases. As the need to preserve resources and prevent viral transmission grows, prioritizing only high priority surgical cases is paramount. A similar approach to prioritization will also be needed as nonemergent cases are allowed to proceed in the coming weeks. While these decisions will often be made on a case-by-case basis, more nuanced surgeon-driven consensus guidelines are needed for the near future.Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Inc.

37 keywords...

hide…