Pd15-02 International Urologic Mission Work in the Developing World: A Resident Perspective

You have accessJournal of UrologyGlobal Health/Humanitarian (PD15)1 May 2024PD15-02 INTERNATIONAL UROLOGIC MISSION WORK IN THE DEVELOPING WORLD: A RESIDENT PERSPECTIVE Samit Sunny Roy, Heet Amlani, Jitendra Amlani, Gopal Badlani, and Amar Singh Samit Sunny RoySamit Sunny Roy , Heet AmlaniHeet Amlani , Jitendra AmlaniJitendra Amlani , Gopal BadlaniGopal Badlani , and Amar SinghAmar Singh View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/01.JU.0001008648.33830.32.02AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Since 1992 there have been 98 urology mission trips sponsored by various philanthropic organizations in Bhopal, India. With support from the Urology Care Foundation (UCF) Humanitarian Grant, the authors were able to take part in this camp. Our aim is to report our experience and potential avenues for improvement for future trips. METHODS: In September 2023, Sewa Sadan Eye Hospital hosted the 98th mega free urology camp. Surgical staff included three attending urologists and one resident. In one week, approximately 500 patients were screened by local general practice physicians. After screening, all patients were evaluated by urologic staff to determine appropriateness of surgery. Deidentified data was collected during the camp to better understand urologic needs in the area to better project capital and resource requirements for future camps. RESULTS: The 5-day camp was split with 2.5 days each being used for clinic/screening and OR time. Over the operative period, 63 patients underwent urologic surgery. The most common procedure was transurethral resection of the prostate accounting for 34.9% of total cases. The next most common cases were percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL; n=13; 20.6%), direct vision internal urethrotomy (n=10; 15.9%), urethroplasty (n=6; 9.5%), hydrocelectomy (n=5; 7.9%), and ureteroscopy (n=2; 3.2%). Other cases included cystolitholapaxy (n=2; 3.2%), pyeloplasty (n=1; 1.6%), pubovaginal sling (n=1; 1.6%). CONCLUSIONS: Participation in the camp was enlightening. From a resident perspective, the experience was invaluable in building a foundation for future global work. The contribution of local physicians in patient recruitment and screening was critical. Without this collaborative effort, the camp would not be possible. However, working in a foreign medical system and infrastructure revealed some important differences and challenges to practicing in the developing world. The most obvious of these were communication in a foreign language and the diagnostic and technologic constraints compared to the US. The prevalence of PCNL was higher than expected as there was no access to flexible ureteroscopy. Medical records are hand-written and kept with patients making data extraction difficult. The lack of centralized information sources makes data-driven analysis difficult. While we were ecstatic to take part in a sustainable medical mission, future efforts should focus on prospective data collection to better analyze outcomes and identify areas of improvement. With philanthropic support from UCF there are ongoing efforts to address this issue. Source of Funding: The Urology Care Foundation 2023 Humanitarian Grant © 2024 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 211Issue 5SMay 2024Page: e359 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2024 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.Metrics Author Information Samit Sunny Roy More articles by this author Heet Amlani More articles by this author Jitendra Amlani More articles by this author Gopal Badlani More articles by this author Amar Singh More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...