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.

Purpose: To evaluate the prognostic factors affecting surgical margin and recurrence in patients who underwent partial nephrectomy for renal masses. Materials and Methods: Data of 125 patients who underwent open or laparoscopic partial nephrectomy due to renal mass between January 2006 and January 2019 were analyzed retrospectively. Demographic data, habits, additional diseases, clinical and laboratory findings, operational data, the morphology of the tumor in computerized tomography or magnetic-resonance imaging and follow-up data were scanned and acquired via our hospital’s system and archive. Results: Average age was 54.4, male-female ratio was 1.55 and average tumor size was 3.31 cm. 104 patients had malignant pathology and 21 was benign. Positive surgical margin rate was 5.6% and recurrence rate was 3.2%. Average follow-up was 47.4 months. Pathological size of the tumor was larger (p=0.006), warm-ischemia period was lower (p=0.003), and PADUA score was higher (p=0.015) in open technique. Tumor size and tumor stage were statistically higher in patients with recurrence (p=0.009, p<0.001 respectively). No statistically significant difference was observed between surgical margin positivity and tumor size, Fuhrman grades, PADUA scores, R.E.N.A.L. scores, and C-index. (p>0.05) Conclusion: Surgical margin positivity after partial nephrectomy is not significantly associated with tumor characteristics and anatomical scoring systems. Tumor size and stage after partial nephrectomy are valuable parameters in evaluating the recurrence risk. Keywords: nephrectomy, recurrence, margins of excision, prognosis