Aim: To evaluate the tendency, knowledge, awareness and behavior patterns of urology residents training at different institutions in Turkey about the use of fluoroscopy in operations. Methods: The 13-questioned survey prepared using “Google Forms©” as of 01.03.2021 was shared for four weeks in the “WhatsApp®” application group, which includes 279 urology residents studying with university hospitals and training and research hospitals in Turkey. One hundred and thirteen participants, who completed the questionnaire were included in the study. Results: Of the 113 urology residents included in the study, 56 (49.6%) were studying in university hospitals and 57 (50.4%) were in training and research hospitals. 67.3% of the residents stated that they never hesitated to participate in the operations which fluoroscopy was used. Additionally, the residents stated that, also 43.4% of the auxiliary healthcare staff frequently refrain from being involved in these cases(p <0.001). While 21 (37.5%) of the residents trained in the university hospital reported that they hesitated from these cases, this rate was found that 16 (28.2%) of the residents who were trained in the training and research hospitals and a significant difference was observed between two groups (p <0.016). Among residents, the rate of using radioprotective lead apron was 94.7%, and the rate of thyroid shield use was 98.2%. While the rate of using radiation protective glasses was 1.8%, it was learned that none of the residents used radioprotective gloves. Only 5.3% of the residents stated that they are trained in subjects about the harmful radiation effect. Conclusion: Urology residents in Turkey do not receive sufficient training on the harmful effects of fluoroscopy, which they frequently use in their daily practice. In addition, the residents whom training in university hospitals are more scared of the radiation exposure from fluoroscopy than their colleagues working in training and research hospitals.

Aim: In this study, we aimed to evaluate the anxiety and depression status of prostate cancer (PCa) patients whose planned operations in the urology clinic of our hospital, which is serving as a pandemic hospital in Turkey have been postponed due to the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Methods: This survey study was conducted at urology clinic of Ankara City Hospital between March 1 and June 1, 2020 and included 24 male patients who agreed to answer the questionnaires (State-Trait Anxiety Inventory [STAI] I and II and Beck Depression Inventory [BDI]). Demographical and clinical data (age, time since diagnosis, total serum prostate specific antigen (PSA) levels, risk groups according to the D’Amico classification system, smoking, alcohol habitus, major surgical history, and comorbidities) of the patients were collected from hospital software. Results: The mean STAI-I score of the patients (46.7 ± 1.4 [44–49]) was significantly higher than their STAI-II score (41.7 ± 2.4 [39–47]) (p < 0.001). The negative correlation between the decrease in age and STAI-I score was found to be statistically significant (r = 0.439, p < 0.05). The mean BDI score of the patients was 4.3 ± 3.2 (0–13), which was compatible with mild depression. There was no statistically significant difference between the time elapsed from diagnosis, PSA levels, smoking and alcohol habitus, major surgical history and comorbidity status, and STAI-I, STAI-II, and BDI scores (p > 0.05). Conclusion: Prostate cancer patients with postponed operations should be guided properly in order to manage their anxiety status especially young patients.