Abstracts from the New England Section of the AUA 2021

© The Canadian Journal of Urology TM : International Supplement, October 2021 Scientific Session VI: General Urology, Clinical Practice and Academics Urology Resident Surgical Ergonomics Brandon Childs, MD 1 , Cristina Vega, BS 2 , Arthur Mourtzinos, MD 1 1 Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Burlington, MA, USA; 2 Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA Introduction: Surgery is a physically demanding occupation which can lead to the development of musculoskeletal pain (MSKP). These injuries can inflict long-term physical, emotional, and economic consequences. Surgical ergonomics has been an understudied topic within the field of urology and specifically during residency education. We sought to further characterize urology residents’ knowledge and experiences regarding surgical ergonomics. Materials & Methods: An online survey was created to assess topics such as work-related pain, provoking factors, and ergonomics education. This questionnaire was sent by email to all accredited urology residency program directors listed on the American Association of Urology website. This was then disseminated to eligible residents. Results: We received a total of 98 responses (66 male- 67.3% and 32 female- 32.7%). Mean age and post-graduate year were 30.3 years and 3.2, respectively. Work-related MSKP was reported in 64.3% of respondents. Of all residents, 60.2% plan to pursue fellowship, and 10.4% stated that subspecialty choice was influenced by work-related pain. 74.5% affirmed that their program does not address surgical ergonomics. Procedures which most commonly led to MSKP were open-pelvic (56.1%), endoscopic (39.8%), and open- retroperitoneal (34.7%) cases. The greatest increases in pain after a full day in the ORwere described in the neck, shoulders, and upper back (figure 1). Seven residents stated that work-related pain has either led to operative mistakes or the inability to operate. A total of 42.7% of trainees have used NSAIDs for pain control, many as often as 1-3 times per week. Improved ergonomics training was desired in 88.5% of participants in the form of instruction while operating, simulation training, and lectures/didactics. Conclusions: Two-thirds of urology trainees have experienced work-related pain or injuries most commonly reported in the neck, back, and shoulders. There currently exists a substantial opportunity to improve residency education regarding surgical ergonomics with most trainees desiring more instruction to prevent MSKP. 60 UrologyMatch 2021: Characteristics andOutcomes of Successful Applicants Amid COVID-19 Spencer H. Bell, BS 1 , Trevor C. Hunt, MD 2 , Alberto A. Castro Bigalli, MD 3 , Joshua Randolph, MD 4 , Andrew Gusev, MD 5 1 Brody School of Medicine at East Carolina University, Greenville, NC, USA; 2 Department of Urology, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, USA; 3 Division of Urology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA; 4 Department of Urology, UC Irvine Health, Orange, CA, USA; 5 Department of Urology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA Introduction: Urology is historically a highly selective residency, and the 2021 urology match rate of 74% was the lowest in 5 years. It is unclear whether this is a result of COVID-related disruptions or is due to other factors such as increased interest in urology. Only 34% of applicants surveyed preferred virtual interviews, and many expressed concerns about match outcomes in the months prior to it. Unfortunately, applicant data are scarce compared to those published by other specialties. Thus, our aim was to describe the characteristics and outcomes of recently matched urology applicants. Materials & Methods: The popular Urology Match Google spreadsheet was accessed in February 2021 and reviewed to summarize anonymous, crowdsourced, self-reported data for matched applicants, including a complete match list for all residency programs. Results were compared to historical data published by the AUA. Results: Of 198matched applicants with data, 64 (18%) matched at their home programwhile 32 (9%) matched where they completed an away rotation. Six of 143 (4%) programs matched all home students. Of 83 matched applicants with data, 73 (88%) were US allopathic seniors, 8 (10%) were osteopaths, 2 were foreign grads, and 20%had no home residency program.Additional data are displayed in the Table . USMLE scores were consistent with prior reports and >70% sent Step 2 CK scores to programs. Most matched applicants were in the top class quartile, with 39% earningAOAstatus. On average, matched applicants had 4 published articles and 9 other research items. They completed 2 urology sub-internships at home or away sites and applied to 80 programs. Matched applicants received 19 interviews, 2-3 being from the waitlist, and attended and ranked 15. Over half matched in their top 2 choices with 83% in their top 5. 11% matched from a waitlist interview and 21% matched at a program ranked lower than their home/away rotation sites. Conclusions: In an unprecedented academic year and application cycle, matched urology applicants remained highly competitive and obtained their desired programs even while completing fewer away rotations. Interview metrics were not notably higher than in prior years, despite concerns of virtual interviews leading to inflation and hoarding. A significant minority matched from the waitlist, lending support to the new interview invitation process’s utility. 59 30