TORSAFUF - Surgical exploration for torsion of spermatic cord suspicion and risk factors for unnecessary surgery: Results of a French nationwide retrospective study on 2940 patients.

BACKGROUNDS: Spermatic cord torsion is a frequent urological emergency that mostly concerns teenagers and young adults. This study aimed to determine the clinical and surgical characteristics of young adults who had scrotal exploration for suspected spermatic cord torsion and to identify clinical risk factors associated with needless scrotal exploration. METHODS: We retrospectively collected national data from patients aged 12years and older who underwent a surgical exploration for suspicion of torsion of the spermatic cord between 2005 and 2019 in 17 hospitals. We analyzed demographics, surgical and postoperative characteristics in our population. We compared the cohort according to the intraoperative diagnosis of torsion or not. RESULTS: In total, 2940 had surgical exploration: 1802 (61.3%) patients had torsion of the spermatic cord and 1138 (38.7%) had another diagnosis. In multivariate analysis, age (OR: 1.04; 95% CI: 1.01-1.06; P=0.005), medical history of cryptorchism (OR: 4.14; 95% CI: 1.05-16.31; P=0.042) and VAS pain score (OR: 0.91; 95% CI: 0.83-0.98; P=0.018) were risk factors significantly associated with unnecessary surgical exploration. The rate of complications in the 90days after surgery was 11% in the "torsion" group, and 9.7% in the "non-torsion" group (P=0.28). CONCLUSION: Scrotal exploration without intraoperative diagnosis of torsion was performed in 40% of our cohort. VAS pain score and cryptorchism history can help for the diagnosis but scrotal exploration remains the way to diagnose spermatic cord torsion and should be performed on the slightest suspicion, even after 24hours of symptoms, as the chances for testicular salvage remains around 50%.

Multicenter external validation of the radical cystectomy pentafecta in a European cohort of patients undergoing robot-assisted radical cystectomy with intracorporeal urinary diversion for bladder cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To perform an external validation of this RC-pentafecta. METHOD: Between January 2014 and December 2019, 104 consecutive patients who underwent RARC with ICUD within 6 urological centers were analyzed retrospectively. Patients who simultaneously demonstrated negative soft tissue surgical margins (STSMs), a lymph node (LN) yield ≥ 16, absence of major (Clavien-Dindo grade III-V) 90-day postoperative complications, absence of UD-related long-term sequelae, and absence of 12-month clinical recurrence were considered to have achieved RC-pentafecta. A multivariable logistic regression model was used to measure predictors for achieving RC-pentafecta. We analyzed the influence of this RC-pentafecta on survival, and the impact ofthe surgical experience. RESULTS: Since 2014, 104 patients who had completed at least 12 months of follow-up were included. Over a mean follow-up of 18 months, a LN yield ≥ 16, negative STSMs, absence of major complications at 90 days, and absence of UD-related surgical sequelae and clinical recurrence at ≤ 12 months were observed in 56%, 96%, 85%, 81%, and 91% of patients, respectively, resulting in a RC-pentafecta rate of 39.4%. Multivariate analysis showed that age was an independent predictor of pentafecta achievement (odds ratio [OR], 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.90. 0.99; p = 0.04). The surgeon experience had an impact on the validation of the criteria. CONCLUSION: This study confirmed that the RC-pentafecta is reproducible and could be externally used for the outcome assessment after RARC with ICUD. Therefore, the RC-pentafecta could be a useful tool to assess surgical success and its impact on different outcomes.

Educational program in onco-urology for young urologists: What are their needs?

PURPOSE: The emergence of new communication media such as digital contents are progressively replacing more traditional medias in the field of educational programs. Our purpose was to assess urologist in training aspirations regarding urological education. METHODS: Members of a national urologist in training association were sent an anonymous online questionnaire regarding their medical formation in the field of urology. Responders interest for urological sub-specialty or education support (new tools and traditional support) were evaluated through a 5-point Likert scale. RESULTS: Overall, 109 young urologists (26%) responded to the survey. Most of the respondents worked during their training in an academic hospital (n=89, 82%). The three favorite tools for training chosen by the responders were: videos, workshop or masterclass, and podcasts (responders very interested were respectively n=64 (58.7%), n=50 (45.9%), and n=49 (45%)). E-mail newsletters were reported as the less useful educational tool by participants (n=38, 34.9%). Participants were very interested in improving their surgical skills and their radiological knowledge. Responders who were the most attracted by PCa were much more looking to improve their systemic treatment and radiological knowledges. CONCLUSIONS: Urologic-oncology was a priority regarding education for urologists in training. A majority of participants expressed a lack in their surgical education, revealing a reduced OR access and underlining utilization of new tools such as simulation. New digital contents such as social media or podcast achieved high interest for the participants, instead of more traditional media. There is a need that educational content evolve and uses new digital media. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

Residents and patients benefit from surgical simulation on a live porcine model, could we consider it as ethical?

INTRODUCTION: The objective was to evaluate, by self-questionnaire, the feeling of participants in surgical training sessions on a live porcine model. METHODS: A computerized questionnaire (GoogleForm ©) was sent to the members of the French Association of Urologists-in-Training (AFUF) (fellows and residents). Only questionnaires from Urologists-in-training who had participated in surgical training sessions were included. The sessions consisted of performing surgeries such as laparoscopic nephrectomies or laparoscopic cystectomies. RESULTS: Overall, 198 met the inclusion criteria. A total of 36.4% (72/198) of the participants were fellows and 63.6% (126/198) were residents. According to the participants, the main interest of sessions was to be able to train for emergency situations. A total of 79.8% (158/198) of the participants wanted surgical simulation to become compulsory. To their opinion, the main advantage of surgical simulation on a live porcine model was: technical progress in 87.4% (173/198) of cases. A total of 13.1% (26/198) of the participants found it was unethical to perform the first technical procedures on live animal models. A total of 65.7% (130/198) of the participants considered that there is currently no system of substitution. CONCLUSION: For the participants, surgical training on a live porcine model allows technical progress while training for serious emergency situations. Surgeons and patients could benefit from this risk-free mock surgical scenario. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.