Introduction This study aimed to evaluate the etiological factors and their effects on long-term clinical outcomes in patients with iatrogenic ureteral injury (IUI). Material and Method Twenty-seven patients who underwent surgery because of IUI were evaluated between January 2011 and April 2018. Patients were classified according to the time of diagnosis and the need for reoperation after the urologic intervention. The IUI cases detected during gynecological surgery were called ‘perioperative’ IUI, and those diagnosed late as ‘postoperative’ (delayed) IUI. The IUI type was categorized as ‘cold transection’ due to surgical dissection or ligation and ‘thermal injury’ if it depended on any energy-based surgical device. Results Postoperative diagnosed cases consisted of exclusively after laparoscopic surgery (p=.025). Patients with thermal injury to the ureter were mostly diagnosed postoperatively (p= .021). Patients who underwent endourological intervention, 31.25% (N = 5/16) were diagnosed during gynecologic surgery, and 68.75% (n = 11/16) were diagnosed postoperatively. For open reconstructive surgery, these rates were observed to be 72.72% (n = 8/11) and 27.28% (n = 3/11), respectively (p=.034). IUI was due to thermal injury in all patients who developed complications after the urological intervention (p = .046), and the first urological intervention was endoscopic double loop stenting (p = .005). One of these patients was diagnosed in the perioperative period and seven in the postoperatively (p = .016). Conclusion Treatment success rates are low in patients who underwent endourological intervention after thermal IUI. Therefore, surgical techniques in which the traumatic ureter segment is excised should be preferred to avoid complications. Key Words Ureter, Iatrogenic, Thermal Injury, Iatrogenic Ureteral Injury, Endourological Intervention.

Objective: To present a nation-wide analysis of the workload of urology departments in Turkey week-by-week during Covid-19 pandemic. Methodology: The centers participating in the study were divided into three groups as tertiary referral centers, state hospitals and private practice hospitals. The number of outpatients, inpatients, daily interventions and urological surgeries were recorded prospectively between 9-March-2020 and 31-May-2020. All these variables were recorded for the same time interval of 2019 as well. The weekly change of the workload of urology during pandemic period was evaluated; also the workload of urology and the distributions of certain urological surgeries were compared between the pandemic period and the same time interval of the year 2019. Results: A total of 51 centers participated in the study. The number of outpatients, inpatients, urological surgeries and daily interventions were found to be dramatically decreased by the third week of pandemics in state hospitals and tertiary referral centers; however the daily urological practice were similar in private practice hospitals throughout the pandemic period. When the workload of urology in pandemic period and the same time interval of the year 2019 were compared; a huge decrease was observed in all variables during pandemic period. However, temporary measures like ureteral stenting, nephrostomy placement and percutaneous cystostomy have been found to increase during Covid-19 pandemic compared to normal life. Conclusions: Covid-19 pandemic significantly effected the routine daily urological practice likewise other subspecialties and priority was given to emergent and non-deferrable surgeries by urologists in concordance with published clinical guidelines.