IntroductionThere are numerous scientific publications on testicular microlithiasis (TML) detected during ultrasound (US) examination. We wished to update the data.MethodsPubMed was used to identify original articles published between 1998 and May 2017 describing the association between TML and testicular tumor. Studies were only included if TML was diagnosed by US. Studies were then classified into subgroups according to the following criteria: asymptomatic, symptomatic, infertility, cryptorchidism, family or personal history of testicular cancer, and “no given reason for US”. A Z-Test was used to identify differences within these subgroups. In addition, we identified prospective cohorts of TML patients. Numbers, duration of follow-up, and occurrence of the “testicular tumor” event were recorded for each of them.ResultsOne hundred and seventy-five articles were identified, 40 of which were included. Our review has not showed a clear evidence that cryptorchidism associated with TML is a risk factor for testicular tumor. However, there seems to be a correlation between infertility associated with TML and a higher tumor risk. There were not enough studies to confirm a relationship between family or personal history associated with TML and the tumor risk. There was also a correlation with a higher tumor risk for symptomatic associated with TML and “no given reason for US” plus TML groups. However, these groups are assumed to contain bias and caution must be taken regarding conclusions. Regarding the prospective cohort studies, 16 testicular tumors appeared in the follow-up of patients with TML, 13 patients had risk factors.ConclusionIn cases of TML incidental finding by US with the presence of risk factors (personal history of testicular cancer, testicular atrophy, infertility, cryptorchidism) a consultation with a specialist should be considered. In the absence of risk factors, the occurrence of testicular cancer in patients with TML is similar to the risk of the general population.

IntroductionOpen surgery is increasingly being replaced by laparoscopic approaches that are more demanding for the surgical team. The physical and mental workload of these approaches have not been quantified.Materials and methodsA multicenter prospective study was performed evaluating the physical and mental stresses of 4 surgical approaches (open surgery [OS], standard laparoscopy [SL], hand-assisted laparoscopy [HAL], and robot-assisted laparoscopy [RAL]) for donor nephrectomy for the surgeon and their assistant. The Borg Scale was used to evaluate exertion in different body parts every 30 mins during surgery and the NASA-TLX score was used to evaluate overall workload.Results264 nephrectomies were performed over a 33-month period and 258 questionnaires evaluating these surgeries were obtained. Surgeons experienced less left shoulder and arm exertion and left forearm and hand exertion, but greater lower back exertion, as measured by the Borg scale, with RAL. Leg exertion was significantly greater with OS. Assistant surgeons experienced increased exertion in the back, right shoulder and arm, and right forearm and hand with RAL. NASA Task load index (TLX) surgeon scores showed mental demand was similar for all 4 surgical approaches. Physical demand was lower and overall performance was higher with RAL.DiscussionFour different nephrectomy surgical approaches were evaluated in a multicenter setting. Surgeon and assistant scores of physical exertions were generally in the “easy” range but confirmed that robotic surgery is an ergonomic progress compared to other techniques, except for the axial skeleton. Further, it degrades the working conditions for the assistant.

Introduction Due to the development of robotic surgery, surgeons operating at the console are physically separated from the patient. They must rely on help from an assistant, also called bedside surgeon. This study aimed to investigate the habits and practices of French urologic residents when performing this role and to determine whether they expected specific training to qualify as bedside surgeons. Materials and Methods A web-based survey was sent to French urology residents and fellows using the mailing-list of the French Association of Urologists in Training (AFUF). Results Over a 3-month period, 86 residents and fellows responded to the survey. Seventy-five (87.2%) thought that an experience as bedside surgeon was useful to acquire console surgeon status and, more specifically, 48.2% of them indicated that this former experience was vital. Nearly 64% considered that learning robotic surgery was essential during residency and fellowship. Overall, 91.9% believed that bedside surgeons should receive a formal training. They were 69.7% to need 5 to 10 procedures to feel confident as bedside surgeon. Almost 75% underwent laparoscopic training on simulators. Having access to a surgery school significantly increased the probability of receiving laparoscopic training on simulators (p = 0.0033). Conclusion French urology residents and fellows expect a specific training program for bedside surgeons to increase their level of confidence and to get familiar with the device during their first robotic procedures. For them, a bedside surgeon program on a regional/national level would be required.

Objectives: The objective is to evaluate the efficacy of the continuous wound infusion (CWI) with Ropivacaine (naropeine 2 mg/ml) on postoperative pain, analgesics consumption, and bowel function in renal transplantation patients. Materials and Methods: A retrospective study trial including 79 patients who underwent renal transplantation. Patients were separated into two groups (catheter or without catheter). We identified 52 (65.8%) patients who received catheter wound infusion during the first 48 h postoperatively. On the other hand, 27 (34.1%) patients received standard without catheter anesthetic technique. Catheter wound infusion was achieved through a 12 cm catheter, inserted subcutaneously after abdominal closure. The catheter was placed above the external oblique aponeurosis. All postoperative data were examined to evaluate the first postoperative 48 h. This study aims to assess three variables: postoperative pain analysis through a visual analog scale, analgesics consumption, and bowel function. Results: The overall score of the three variables was studied. Regarding pain assessment, we have determined that the group of patients with catheter scored better than patients without catheter with borderline significance (66.3 vs. 61.2 consecutively; P = 0.0843). An early bowel function was noted in patients with catheters on the 2nd postoperative day (P = 0.0209). Moreover, patients without catheter consumed more painkillers with nonsignificant difference (P = 0.2499). Conclusion: Patients with catheter showed earlier bowel function than the noncatheter group on the 2nd postoperative day. The catheter group had better pain evaluation.

No abstract