We evaluated possible factors predicting testicular cancer in patients undergoing testis sparing surgery. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the records of all patients who underwent testis sparing surgery for a small testicular mass at a total of 5 centers. All patients with 1 solitary lesion 2 cm or less on preoperative ultrasound were enrolled in the study. Testis sparing surgery consisted of tumor enucleation for frozen section examination. Immediate radical orchiectomy was performed in all cases of malignancy at frozen section examination but otherwise the testes were spared. Univariate and multivariate analysis were performed and ROC curves were produced to evaluate preoperative factors predicting testicular cancer. Results: Overall 147 patients were included in the study. No patient had elevated serum tumor markers. Overall 21 of the 147 men (14%) presented with testicular cancer. On multivariate analysis the preoperative ultrasound diameter of the lesion was a predictor of malignancy (OR 6.62, 95% CI 2.26e19.39, p[0.01). On ROC analysis lesion diameter had an AUC of 0.75 (95% CI 0.63e0.86, p[0.01) to predict testicular cancer. At the best cutoff of 0.85 the diameter of the lesion had 81% sensitivity, 58% specificity, 24% positive predictive value and 95% negative predictive value. Conclusions: Our study confirms that small testicular masses are often benign and do not always require radical orchiectomy. Preoperative ultrasound can assess lesion size and the smaller the nodule, the less likely that it is malignant. Therefore, we suggest a stepwise approach to small testicular masses, including tumorectomy, frozen section examination and radical orchiectomy or testis sparing surgery according to frozen section examination results.

Not applicable.

To describe the trend in surgical volume in urology in Italy during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak, as a result of the abrupt reorganisation of the Italian national health system to augment care provision to symptomatic patients with COVID-19.

BackgroundThe purpose of the study was to investigate whether micro-TESE can improve sperm retrieval rate (SRR) compared to conventional single TESE biopsy on the same testicle or to contralateral multiple TESE, by employing a novel stepwise micro-TESE approach in a population of poor prognosis patients with non-obstructive azoospermia (NOA).MethodsSixty-four poor prognosis NOA men undergoing surgical testicular sperm retrieval for ICSI, from March 2007 to April 2013, were included in this study. Patients inclusion criteria were a) previous unsuccessful TESE, b) unfavorable histology (SCOS, MA, sclerahyalinosis), c) Klinefelter syndrome. We employed a stepwise micro-TESE consisting three-steps: 1) single conventional TESE biopsy; 2) micro-TESE on the same testis; 3) contralateral multiple TESE.ResultsSRR was 28.1 % (18/64). Sperm was obtained in both the initial single conventional TESE and in the following micro-TESE. The positive or negative sperm retrieval was further confirmed by a contralateral multiple TESE, when performed. No significant pre-operative predictors of sperm retrieval, including patients’ age, previous negative TESE or serological markers (LH, FSH, inhibin B), were observed at univariate or multivariate analysis. Micro-TESE (step 2) did not improve sperm retrieval as compared to single TESE biopsy on the same testicle (step 1) or multiple contralateral TESE (step 3).ConclusionsStepwise micro-TESE could represent an optimal approach for sperm retrieval in NOA men. In our view, it should be offered to NOA patients in order to gradually increase surgical invasiveness, when necessary. Stepwise micro-TESE might also reduce the costs, time and efforts involved in surgery.

Purpose To compare surgical results, morbidity and positive surgical margins rate of patients undergoing robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN) versus open partial nephrectomy (OPN). Methods This is an observational multicenter study promoted by the ''Associazione GIovani Laparoscopisti Endoscopisti'' (AGILE) no-Profit Foundation, which involved six Italian urologic centers. All clinical, surgical, and pathological variables of patients treated with OPN or RPN for renal tumors were gathered in a prospectively maintained database. Tumor nephrometry was measured with PADUA score, and complications were stratified with modified Clavien system. Differences between RPN and OPN group were assessed with univariate analysis. Perioperative variables independently associated with complications were assessed with multivariate analysis. Results A total of 198 and 105 patients were enrolled in OPN and RPN group, respectively. Both had similar demographics, indications to surgery, tumor nephrometry, renal function, WIT (18.7 vs. 18.2 min; p = NS), positive margin rate (5.6 vs. 5.7 %; p = NS), intraoperative complications, and postoperative medical complications. Compared to OPN, RPN group was significantly more morbid (p = 0.04), included tumors with smaller size (p = 0.002), had longer operative time (p \ 0.001), lower blood loss, surgical postoperative complications (5.7 vs. 21.2 %, p \ 0.001), Clavien 3-4 surgical complications (1 vs. 9.1 %, p = 0.001), and shorter hospitalization. The surgical approach resulted independently correlated with surgical complications on multivariate analysis. Conclusion In the present series, RPN was associated with a significant reduction of blood loss, surgical complications, including the reintervention rate for urinary fistula and postoperative bleeding, and with a shorter hospitalization.