OBJECTIVE: To correlate male lower urinary tract symptoms between age, quality of life scores,parameters of uroflowmetry and prostate size. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Two hundred eight males were included in this study. Uroflowmetry parameters,age, International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), Quality of Life (QoL) scores and prostate sizewere gathered. For correlation, distribution of age, uroflowmetry parameters and prostate size werefirst compared to IPSS. Analysis of variance was used to compare age of patients, while Kruskall-wallis test was used to compare the QoL, uroflowmetry parameters, and prostate size on each IPSSgroups. Ordinal logistic regression analysis was used to correlate IPSS to age, quality of life,uroflowmetry parameters, and prostate size both for multivariate and univariate analysis. RESULTS: There was no significant correlation between age and IPSS. However, on profile distribution,the age distribution between symptom scores were statistically similar. Qol scores were directlyproportional to IPSS. Thus, patients with a worse QoL score were more likely to have higher IPSS.Qmax scores decreased as symptom severity increased. Patients with higher Qmax scores are lesslikely to have higher IPSS scores. Voided volume was observed to decrease as IPSS severity increased,but this was not statistically significant. Patients with higher post void residual scores were morelikely to have higher IPSS. There was also no significant correlation between prostate size and IPSS. CONCLUSION There were no significant correlation between IPSS and age, voided volume and prostatesize. On the other hand, patients with a worse QoL score and a high post void residual had higherIPSS. Patients with a high Qmax, are less likely to have an elevated IPSS.

OBJECTIVE: To provide an overview on the impact of healthcare disruption by the COVID-19 pandemic to urology training programs in the Philippines. METHODS: A survey questionnaire was used in collaboration with the study done by Rosen, et al. last May 2020. Telephone survey of the study population was done determining the status of resident staffing, workload, health/wellness, and didactics. Numerical and categorical data were analyzed and descriptive statistics are provided. RESULTS: All the observations on resident time in the workplace, including assignment to teams (81%), redeployment responses (55-97%), and remote clinical work (65%) were significant. Fifty one percent of residents have decreased research load. Eighty one percent have didactics in small groups. Fifty-five percent have 1 to 2 Video-based learning/conferences per week (p=0.007) followed by those with 3-4 with 98% (p=0.120) and those with >5 with only 6% (p=0.729). For Resident health and wellness, 87% of the residents were exposed to COVID-positive patients, but only 8% of residents were COVID positive (p=0.591). Lastly, 59% of the participants do not have access to wellness programs. CONCLUSION Data from respondents revealed significant changes in the different aspects of the present study. Urology residents spent more time away from their specialties, and have been re-deployed to COVID-19 floors. Ambulatory services, conferences, educational lectures have mostly shifted to virtual platforms. Resident concerns for COVID-19 exposure have been addressed properly; however, wellness programs have not been widely available for residents. As a first national survey, the present study may give significant insights on program changes and may be used as preliminary data for future studies.
Philippines