Abstracts from the Abstracts from the Mid-Atlantic Section of the AUA 2021

© The Canadian Journal of Urology TM : International Supplement, October 2021 Moderated Poster Session 1: Prostate Cancer Surgical Preparation in the Next Generation: YouTube Domination? J. Eccles, N. Michalak, J. Raman, S. MacDonald Penn State Health Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, PA, USA Introduction and Objective: Urology trainees now have an array of digital materials and videos to use in conjunction with standard print sources for educational preparation for surgery. We investigate: 1) the degree to which urology trainees use video sources; 2) the types of source used; and 3) how these are combined with traditional print materials. Methods: An IRB approved 13 question RedCap survey was distributed to 145 American College of Graduate Medical Education accredited Urology residency programs via email to the program coordinator who distributed the survey to their respective urology resident. Social media was used to recruit participants. Results were collected anonymously and analyzed. Results: 108 urologic residents completed the survey. Themost common print sources include Hinman’s Atlas of Urologic Surgery (90%), Campbell-Walsh- WeinUrology (75%), and theAUACore Curriculum (70%). Themajority (90%) reportedusing a video source for surgical preparation. Themost common video sources reported include YouTube (93%), the AUA Core Curriculum Videos (84%), and institutional or attending specific videos (46%). The criteria bywhich residents selected videos were video quality (81%), length of video (58%), and institution fromwhich the video was published (37%). Video preparation was reportedmostly commonly forminimally invasive surgery (95%), subspecialty procedures (81%) and open procedures (75%). When asked to rank their top three sources (print and video), 25% of residents reported YouTube as their top source, and 58% included it in their top three. Interestingly, while 77% of residents reported that they were aware the AUACore Curriculum contains a video section, only 24% of residents were aware of the AUAYouTube channel. Conclusions: The majority of urologic residents use video resources to prepare for surgeries with a heavy reliance on YouTube. AUA curated video sources should be highlighted in the resident curriculum as the quality and educational content of YouTube videos can vary. Comparative Outcomes of Salvage Retzius-sparing Versus Standard Robotic Prostatectomy: an International, Multi-surgeon Series K. Kowalczyk 1 , R. Madi 2 , C. Eden 3 , P. Sooriakumaran 3 , K. Fransis 4 , Y. Raskin 5 , S. Joniau 5 , S. Johnson 6 , K. Jacobsohn 6 , A. Galfano 7 , A. Bocciardi 7 , J. Hwang 1 , I. Kim 8 , J. Hu 9 1 MedStar GeorgetownUniversity Hospital, Washington, DC, USA; 2 Medical College of Georgia-Augusta University, Augusta, GA, USA; 3 Santis Clinic, London, United Kingdom; 4 UZA - University Hospital, Antwerp, Belgium; 5 University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium; 6 Medical College of Wisconsin, Wauwatosa, WI, USA; 7 ASST Grande Ospedale Metropolitano Niguarda, Milano, Italy; 8 Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, NJ, USA; 9 Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA Introduction and Objective: Recurrence following non-surgical prostate cancer treatment is common, however salvage prostatectomy (SRP) is rare due to perceived risks. We compared outcomes of salvage Retzius-sparing robotic- assisted radical prostatectomy (SRS-RARP) with salvage standard robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (SS-RARP). Methods: We identified 40 SRS-RARP vs. 32 SS-RARP across 9 centers internationally. Cox proportional hazards model and Kaplan-Meier curves investigated factors associated with risk of incontinence and time to continence. Logistic regression models were constructed to assess factors associated with postoperative pad use and robotic console time. Results: Median follow-upwas 23 vs. 36 months for SRS-RARP vs. SS-RARP. Median console time (130 vs. 175 minutes, p=0.014) and EBL (100 vs. 150 mL, p=0.039) favored SRS-RARP. There were no differences in complication rates (12.5% vs. 28.1%, p=0.096), PSM (57.5% vs. 65.6%, p=0.482), BCR (23.1% vs. 37.5%, p=0.185), or postoperativeADT (12.8% vs. 15.6%, p=0.735). SRS-RARP had improved continence vs. SS-RARP (78.4% vs. 43.8%, p<0.001 for 0-1 pad, 54.1% vs. 6.3%, p<0.001 for 0 pad), lower mean pads per day (0.57 vs. 2.03, p<0.001), and earlier median return to continence (47 vs. 180 days, p=0.008). SRS-RARP was associated with less risk of incontinence (HR 0.36, 0.15-0.89, p<0.028) and decreased pad per day usage (PE -1.73, standard error 0.42, p<0.001). Lymph node dissection (PE 50.6, standard error 14.6, p<0.001) and primary treatment with SBRT (PE 86.9, standard error 37.2, p=0.032) were associated with longer console time. Conclusions: SRS-RARP is a feasible salvage option with significantly improved urinary function outcomes. This may warrant a paradigm shift to increased utilization of SRS-RARP to manage the large number of men who will fail non-surgical primary treatment for prostate cancer. MP1-01 RPE-06 4