Litiasis en receptores de trasplante renal: revisión sistemática / Kidney stones in renal transplant recipients: A systematic review

Introducción La litiasis en el receptor del injerto renal puede ser una enfermedad peligrosa cuyo riesgo potencial es el deterioro de la función renal. Adquisición de la evidencia Se realizó una búsqueda sistemática de la literatura hasta febrero del 2023. El objetivo primario era evaluar la incidencia de litiasis en receptores de trasplante renal (TR). El secundario era valorar el momento de formación, la localización y la composición de la litiasis, las opciones de tratamiento disponibles y la incidencia de la pérdida del injerto. Síntesis de la evidencia Un total de 41 estudios no aleatorizados compuestos por 699 pacientes cumplieron los criterios de inclusión. La edad en el momento del diagnóstico de la litiasis oscilaba entre 29 y 53 años. La incidencia de urolitiasis se encontraba entre 0,1 y 6,3%, siendo diagnosticada generalmente a los 12 meses del TR. La mayoría de las litiasis detectadas se localizaron en los cálices o en la pelvis. La composición más frecuente fue la de oxalato cálcico. Se consideraron diferentes estrategias de tratamiento como vigilancia activa, ureteroscopia, abordaje percutáneo/combinado o cirugía abierta. Del total de pacientes, 15,73% fueron tratados con litotricia extracorpórea por ondas de choque (LEOCh) y 26,75% se sometieron a litotricia endoscópica o extracción quirúrgica. De estos sujetos, 18,03% se abordaron mediante nefrolitotomía percutánea, mientras que 3,14% se sometieron a un manejo combinado. Se realizó litotomía quirúrgica en 5,01% de los casos. La tasa libre de litiasis (TLL) global se situó en torno a 80%. Conclusiones La litiasis en el TR es una patología poco frecuente que suele diagnosticarse al año de la cirugía. Su localización más común son los cálices y la pelvis renal, y en la mayoría de los casos está compuesta de oxalato cálcico. Todos los tratamientos activos han demostrado resultados satisfactorios en términos de TLL, ... . (AU)

Introduction Lithiasis in renal graft recipients might be a dangerous condition with a potential risk of organ function impairment. Evidence acquisition A systematic literature search was conducted through February 2023. The primary objective was to assess the incidence of lithiasis in kidney transplant (KT) recipients. The secondary objective was to assess the timing of stone formation, localization and composition of stones, possible treatment options, and the incidence of graft loss. Evidence synthesis A total of 41 non-randomized studies comprising 699 patients met our inclusion criteria. The age at lithiasis diagnosis ranged between 29-53 years. Incidence of urolithiasis ranged from 0.1 to 6.3%, usually diagnosed after 12 months from KT. Most of the stones were diagnosed in the calyces or in the pelvis. Calcium oxalate composition was the most frequent. Different treatment strategies were considered, namely active surveillance, ureteroscopy, percutaneous/combined approach, or open surgery. 15.73% of patients were submitted to extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL), while 26.75% underwent endoscopic lithotripsy or stone extraction. 18.03% of patients underwent percutaneous nephrolithotomy whilst 3.14% to a combined approach. Surgical lithotomy was performed in 5.01% of the cases. Global stone-free rate was around 80%. Conclusions Lithiasis in kidney transplant is a rare condition usually diagnosed after one year after surgery and mostly located in the calyces and renal pelvis, more frequently of calcium oxalate composition. Each of the active treatments is associated with good results in terms of stone-free rate, thus the surgical technique should be chosen according to the patient's characteristics and surgeon preferences. (AU)

Significant prostate cancer risk after MRI-guided biopsy showing benign findings: Results from a cohort of 381 men.

BACKGROUND: MRI-guided biopsy (MGB) contributes to the diagnosis of clinically significant Prostate Cancer (csPCa). However, there are no clear recommendations for the management of men after a negative MGB. The aim of this study was to assess the risk of csPCa after a first negative MGB. METHODS: Between 2014 and 2020, we selected men with a PI-RADS score ≥ 3 on MRI and a negative MGB (showing benign findings) performed for suspected prostate cancer. MGB (targeted and systematic biopsies) was performed using fully integrated mobile fusion imaging (KOELIS). The primary endpoint was the rate of csPCa (defined as an ISUP grade ≥ 2) diagnosed after a first negative MGB. RESULTS: A total of 381 men with a negative MGB and a median age of 65 (IQR: 59-69, range: 46-85) years were included. During the median follow-up of 31 months, 124 men (32.5%) had a new MRI, and 76 (19.9%) were referred for a new MGB, which revealed csPCa in 16 (4.2%) of them. We found no statistical difference in the characteristics of men diagnosed with csPCa compared with men with no csPCa after the second MGB. CONCLUSION: We observed a risk of significant prostate cancer in 4% of men two years after a negative MRI-guided biopsy. Performing a repeat MRI could improve the selection of men who will benefit from a repeat MRI-guided biopsy, but a clear protocol is needed to follow these patients.

Kidney stones in renal transplant recipients: A systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Lithiasis in renal graft recipients might be a dangerous condition with a potential risk of organ function impairment. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A systematic literature search was conducted through February 2023. The primary objective was to assess the incidence of lithiasis in kidney transplant (KT) recipients. The secondary objective was to assess the timing of stone formation, localization and composition of stones, possible treatment options, and the incidence of graft loss. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: A total of 41 non-randomized studies comprising 699 patients met our inclusion criteria. The age at lithiasis diagnosis ranged between 29-53 years. Incidence of urolithiasis ranged from 0.1-6.3%, usually diagnosed after 12 months from KT. Most of the stones were diagnosed in the calyces or in the pelvis. Calcium oxalate composition was the most frequent. Different treatment strategies were considered, namely active surveillance, ureteroscopy, percutaneous/combined approach, or open surgery. 15.73% of patients were submitted to extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL), while 26.75% underwent endoscopic lithotripsy or stone extraction. 18.03% of patients underwent percutaneous nephrolithotomy whilst 3.14% to a combined approach. Surgical lithotomy was performed in 5.01% of the cases. Global stone-free rate was around 80%. CONCLUSIONS: Lithiasis in kidney transplant is a rare condition usually diagnosed after one year after surgery and mostly located in the calyces and renal pelvis, more frequently of calcium oxalate composition. Each of the active treatments is associated with good results in terms of stone-free rate, thus the surgical technique should be chosen according to the patient's characteristics and surgeon preferences.

Manejo de masas renales en receptores de trasplante renal. Revisión colaborativa de los grupos de trabajo de trasplante renal y cáncer renal de la sección de jóvenes urológos (YAU) de la Asociación Europea de Urología (EAU) / How to manage renal masses in kidney transplant recipients? A collaborative review by the EAU-YAU kidney transplantation and renal cancer working groups

Introducción: Los receptores de trasplante renal (TR) tienen al menos cuatro veces más riesgo de desarrollar neoplasias renales que la población general. Dado que estos pacientes suelen albergar tumores bilaterales o multifocales, el tratamiento de las masas renales sigue siendo un tema controvertido. Objetivo Explorar el tratamiento actual de las masas renales en riñones nativos de pacientes con TR. Adquisición de la evidencia Se realizó una búsqueda bibliográfica en la base de datos Medline/PubMed y se incluyeron 34 estudios en la presente revisión. Síntesis de la evidencia La vigilancia activa es una opción terapéutica factible en pacientes frágiles con masas renales menores de 3 cm. Dado que la cirugía conservadora de nefronas no está justificada en el caso de masas en el riñón nativo, la nefrectomía radical es el tratamiento estándar para los tumores renales en riñones nativos de receptores de TR, con técnicas laparoscópicas asociadas a tasas de complicaciones perioperatorias significativamente menores en comparación con el abordaje abierto. La realización de nefrectomía bilateral de riñón nativo y TR en el mismo acto puede ser una opción terapéutica en pacientes con masa renal y enfermedad poliquística renal, particularmente ante la ausencia de diuresis residual. Los pacientes con enfermedad localizada y nefrectomía radical satisfactoria no requieren ajuste del tratamiento inmunosupresor. En los casos con metástasis, los agentes mTOR pueden garantizar una respuesta antitumoral eficaz, manteniendo a la vez el tratamiento inmunosupresor adecuado para proteger el injerto. Conclusiones El cáncer renal en riñones nativos postrasplante es un acontecimiento frecuente. La nefrectomía radical es el tratamiento de elección en masas renales localizadas. Aún no se ha implementado una estrategia de cribado estandarizada y ampliamente aprobada para las neoplasias malignas en las unidades renales nativas. (AU)

Introduction: Kidney transplant (KT) recipients have a four-times higher risk of renal malignancies compared to general population. As these patients frequently harbor bilateral or multifocal tumors, the management of renal masses is still under debate. Objective To explore the current management of the native kidney masses in KT patients.Acquisition of evidenceWe performed a literature search on MEDLINE/PubMed database. A number of 34 studies were included in the present review. Synthesis of evidence In frail patients with renal masses below 3 cm, active surveillance is a feasible alternative. Nephron-sparing surgery is not justified for masses in the native kidney. Radical nephrectomy is the standard treatment for post-transplant renal tumors of the native kidneys in KT recipients, with laparoscopic techniques leading to significantly less perioperative complication rates as compared to the open approach. Concurrent bilateral native nephrectomy at the time of transplantation can be considered in patients with renal mass and polycystic kidney disease, especially if no residual urinary output is present. Patients with localized disease and successful radical nephrectomy do not require immunosuppression adjustment. In metastatic cases, mTOR agents can ensure efficient antitumoral response, while maintaining proper immunosuppression in order to protect the graft. Conclusions Post-transplant renal cancer of the native kidneys is a frequent occurrence. Radical nephrectomy is most frequently performed for localized renal masses. A standardized and widely-approved screening strategy for malignancies of native renal units is yet to be implemented. (AU)

Trasplante renal abierto frente a trasplante renal asistido por robot: revisión sistemática del grupo de trabajo de trasplante renal de la sección de Jóvenes Urólogos Académicos (YAU) de la Asociación Europea de Urología (EAU) / Open versus robotic-assisted kidney transplantation: A systematic review by the European Association of Urology (EAU) – Young Academic Urologists (YAU) Kidney Transplant Working Group

Introducción En los últimos 20 años se ha evaluado el uso de la robótica en el campo del trasplante renal como abordaje miniinvasivo a esta población especialmente vulnerable. Al tratarse de un campo relativamente novedoso, pocos estudios han comparado el trasplante renal abierto (TRA) y el trasplante renal asistido por robot (TRAR), la mayoría en cohortes pequeñas. Para ampliar los conocimientos actuales, hemos querido reunir en este documento datos comparativos de TRA frente a TRAR en una revisión sistemática. Métodos Se realizó una revisión sistemática de acuerdo con la declaración de Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). Se realizaron búsquedas en las bases de datos Medline, Embase y Cochrane para identificar todos los estudios que informaran sobre los resultados postoperatorios del TRAR frente al TRA. Resultados Un total de 2.136 pacientes de 13 estudios fueron incluidos. La mediana de edad de los receptores fue de 42,6 años (TRA: 43,5 años y TRAR: 40,3 años). La mediana de la tasa de trasplante renal preventivo fue de 27,1% (TRA: 23,3% y TRAR: 33,2%). La mediana del tiempo quirúrgico total y de recalentamiento fueron: 235 y 49 min, respectivamente, en la población TRA; 250 y 60 min en la población TRAR. Las tasas de complicaciones postoperatorias fueron: 26,2% en la población TRA y 17,8% en la población TRAR. Las tasas de retraso en la función del injerto fueron: 4,9% en la población TRA y 2,3 en la población TRAR. Los resultados funcionales a medio plazo y la supervivencia del paciente y del injerto fueron similares entre las poblaciones TRA y TRAR. Conclusión Esta revisión sistemática demostró que el TRAR puede asociarse a una menor incidencia de retraso en la función del injerto y de complicaciones quirúrgicas postoperatorias, así como a unos resultados funcionales a medio plazo y una supervivencia del paciente y del injerto similares, en comparación con el TRA para los pacientes con enfermedad renal terminal (AU)

Introduction In the last 20 years, robotic assisted procedures were evaluated in the field of kidney transplantation to provide a mini-invasive approach for this particularly fragile population. As a relatively new issue, few studies compared open kidney transplantation (OKT) and robotic-assisted kidney transplantation (RAKT), mostly in small cohorts. To improve current knowledge, we wanted here to gather comparative data of OKT vs RAKT in a systematic review. Methods A systematic review was performed according to preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched to identify all studies reporting post-operative outcomes of RAKT versus OKT. Results A total of 2,136 patients in 13 studies were included. Median recipient age was 42.6 years (OKT: 43.5 years and RAKT: 40.3 years). Median preemptive kidney transplantation rate was 27.1% (OKT: 23.3% and RAKT: 33.2%). Median total operative time and rewarming were respectively: 235 and 49 minutes in OKT population; 250 and 60 minutes in RAKT population.Post-operative complications rates were: 26.2% in OKT population and 17.8% in RAKT population. Delayed graft function rates were: 4.9% in OKT population and 2.3 in RAKT population. Mid-term functional outcomes, patient and graft survival were similar in OKT and RAKT population. Conclusion This systematic review showed that RAKT may be associated with a lower incidence of delayed graft function and post-operative surgical complications and similar mid-term functional outcomes, patient and graft survival, compared to OKT for end-stage renal disease patients (AU)

Trasplante renal en receptor pediátrico: consideraciones y estrategias de evaluación preoperatoria / Renal transplantation in pediatric recipients: Considerations and preoperative assessment strategies

Introducción y objetivo El trasplante renal en la población pediátrica difiere del trasplante en adultos en muchos aspectos. Esta revisión se centrará en los aspectos exclusivos del receptor pediátrico. Material y métodos Se realizó una revisión narrativa de la escasa literatura existente sobre la evaluación preoperatoria del trasplante renal en receptor pediátrico con un enfoque educativo. La búsqueda bibliográfica permitió identificar publicaciones en inglés entre enero de 2000 y octubre de 2022. Los estudios publicados se identificaron mediante búsquedas en las siguientes bases de datos electrónicas: PubMed (Medline), WHO/UNAIDS, Google-Scholar, Semantic-Scholar y Research Gate. En aras de la eficacia y la fiabilidad, se utilizaron ensayos controlados aleatorizados, metaanálisis, revisiones sistemáticas de alta calidad y estudios grandes recientes bien diseñados, si estaban disponibles. Se realizaron búsquedas en internet para obtener información pertinente adicional (definiciones, políticas o directrices). Resultados El manejo de las anomalías urogenitales congénitas y la disfunción del tracto urinario inferior, junto con la evaluación urológica pediátrica preoperatoria óptima para el trasplante renal en niños, se ha abordado según la bibliografía disponible. Adicionalmente, se han mencionado consideraciones particulares relativas al trasplante preventivo y al trasplante de un riñón de tamaño adulto en un lactante o un niño pequeño. Conclusiones Los resultados del trasplante renal en niños han mejorado progresivamente en los últimos 15años. El trasplante de donante vivo emparentado ofrece los mejores resultados, y el trasplante preventivo puede ayudar a evitar la diálisis. Las consideraciones quirúrgicas y médicas, tanto en el tratamiento pretrasplante como en el postrasplante del receptor renal pediátrico, son extremadamente importantes para obtener resultados mejores a corto y a largo plazo (AU)

Introduction and objective Renal transplantation in the pediatric population differs from adults in many aspects. This review will focus on the unique issues of the pediatric recipient. Material and methods A narrative review on the scarce literature regarding preoperative evaluation before kidney transplantation of the paediatric recipient with an educational focus was conducted. The literature search allowed for identification of publications in English from January 2000 to October 2022. Published studies were identified by searching the following electronic databases: PubMed (Medline), WHO/UNAIDS, Google-Scholar, Semantic-Scholar and Research Gate. For efficiency and reliability, recent randomized controlled trials, meta-analyses, high quality systematic reviews and large well-designed studies were used if available. Internet searches were conducted for other relevant information (definitions, policies or guidelines). Results Management of congenital urogenital anomalies and lower urinary tract dysfunction along with optimal pediatric urological preoperative assessment for renal transplantation in children is addressed in the light of the available literature. Furthermore, particular considerations including pre-emptive transplantation, transplantation of an adult-size kidney into an infant or small child is discussed. Conclusions Outcomes of renal transplantation in children have shown progressive improvement over the past 15years. Transplantation with living related donor gives the best results and pre-emptive transplantation provides with benefits of avoiding dialysis. Surgical and medical considerations in both the pre-transplant and post-transplant management of the pediatric kidney recipient are extremely crucial in order to achieve better short and long-term results (AU)

How to manage renal masses in kidney transplant recipients? A collaborative review by the EAU-YAU kidney transplantation and renal cancer working groups.

INTRODUCTION: Kidney transplant (KT) recipients have a four-times higher risk of renal malignancies compared to general population. As these patients frequently harbor bilateral or multifocal tumors, the management of renal masses is still under debate. OBJECTIVE: To explore the current management of the native kidney masses in KT patients. ACQUISITION OF EVIDENCE: We performed a literature search on MEDLINE/PubMed database. A number of 34 studies were included in the present review. SYNTHESIS OF EVIDENCE: In frail patients with renal masses below 3 cm, active surveillance is a feasible alternative. Nephron-sparing surgery is not justified for masses in the native kidney. Radical nephrectomy is the standard treatment for post-transplant renal tumors of the native kidneys in KT recipients, with laparoscopic techniques leading to significantly less perioperative complication rates as compared to the open approach. Concurrent bilateral native nephrectomy at the time of transplantation can be considered in patients with renal mass and polycystic kidney disease, especially if no residual urinary output is present. Patients with localized disease and successful radical nephrectomy do not require immunosuppression adjustment. In metastatic cases, mTOR agents can ensure efficient antitumoral response, while maintaining proper immunosuppression in order to protect the graft. CONCLUSIONS: Post-transplant renal cancer of the native kidneys is a frequent occurrence. Radical nephrectomy is most frequently performed for localized renal masses. A standardized and widely-approved screening strategy for malignancies of native renal units is yet to be implemented.

Open versus robotic-assisted kidney transplantation: A systematic review by the European Association of Urology (EAU) - Young Academic Urologists (YAU) Kidney Transplant Working Group.

INTRODUCTION: In the last 20 years, robotic assisted procedures were evaluated in the field of kidney transplantation to provide a mini-invasive approach for this particularly fragile population. As a relatively new issue, few studies compared open kidney transplantation (OKT) and robotic-assisted kidney transplantation (RAKT), mostly in small cohorts. To improve current knowledge, we wanted here to gather comparative data of OKT vs RAKT in a systematic review. METHODS: A systematic review was performed according to preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched to identify all studies reporting post-operative outcomes of RAKT versus OKT. RESULTS: A total of 2136 patients in 13 studies were included. Median recipient age was 42.6 years (OKT: 43.5 years and RAKT: 40.3 years). Median preemptive kidney transplantation rate was 27.1 % (OKT: 23.3 % and RAKT: 33.2 %). Median total operative time and rewarming were respectively: 235 and 49 min in OKT population; 250 and 60 min in RAKT population. Post-operative complications rates were: 26.2 % in OKT population and 17.8 % in RAKT population. Delayed graft function rates were: 4.9 % in OKT population and 2.3 in RAKT population. Mid-term functional outcomes, patient and graft survival were similar in OKT and RAKT population. CONCLUSION: This systematic review showed that RAKT may be associated with a lower incidence of delayed graft function and post-operative surgical complications and similar mid-term functional outcomes, patient and graft survival, compared to OKT for end-stage renal disease patients.

Renal transplantation in pediatric recipients: Considerations and preoperative assessment strategies.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Renal transplantation in the pediatric population differs from adults in many aspects. This review will focus on the unique issues of the pediatric recipient. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A narrative review on the scarce literature regarding preoperative evaluation before kidney transplantation of the paediatric recipient with an educational focus was conducted. The literature search allowed for identification of publications in English from January 2000 to October 2022. Published studies were identified by searching the following electronic databases: PubMed (MEDLINE), WHO/UNAIDS, Google-Scholar, Semantic-Scholar and Research Gate. For efficiency and reliability, recent randomized controlled trials, meta-analyses, high quality systematic reviews and large well-designed studies were used if available. Internet searches were conducted for other relevant information (definitions, policies or guidelines). RESULTS: Management of congenital urogenital anomalies and lower urinary tract dysfunction along with optimal pediatric urological preoperative assessment for renal transplantation in children is addressed in the light of the available literature. Furthermore, particular considerations including pre-emptive transplantation, transplantation of an adult-size kidney into an infant or small child is discussed. CONCLUSIONS: Outcomes of RT in children have shown progressive improvement over the past 15 years. Transplantation with living related donor gives the best results and pre-emptive transplantation provides with benefits of avoiding dialysis. Surgical and medical considerations in both the pre-transplant and post-transplant management of the pediatric kidney recipient are extremely crucial in order to achieve better short and long-term results.

Novel Organ Perfusion and Preservation Strategies in Controlled Donation After Circulatory Death in Pancreas and Kidney Transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Kidney and pancreatic transplants from controlled donation after circulatory death donors are vulnerable to ischemia-reperfusion injuries. In this context of transplant shortage, there is a need to optimize the function of these transplants and to develop novel perfusion and preservation strategies in controlled donation after circulatory death in kidney and pancreatic transplants. IN SITU PERFUSION AND PRESERVATION STRATEGIES: In situ regional normothermic perfusion improves the outcome of kidney transplants from controlled donation after circulatory death and provides equivalent results for the kidney from brain-dead donors. In situ regional normothermic perfusion is under investigation for pancreatic transplants. EX SITU PERFUSION AND PRESERVATION STRATEGIES: Perfusion on hypothermic machine perfusion is highly recommended for the kidney from controlled donation after cardiac death. Hypothermic oxygenated perfusion machine decreases the rate of graft rejection and graft failure in kidney transplantation. Ex situ normothermic perfusion is an easy way to assess renal function. In the future, kidney transplants could benefit from drug therapy during ex situ normothermic perfusion. In pancreas transplantation, hypothermic machine perfusion and ex situ normothermic perfusion present encouraging results in preclinical studies.

[Assessment of trainee urologists' knowledge in urogenital anatomy]. / Évaluation des connaissances en anatomie uro-génitale des urologues en formation.

The purpose of this study was to assess trainee urologists' [interns and assistant heads of university hospitals (CHU)] knowledge of the anatomy of the urogenital system. An examination consisting of 10 timed (16minutes) multiple-choice questions (MCQ) based on urogenital anatomy assessments for students in third year of the general medical science diploma program (DFGSM3) was sent to members of the French Association of Trainee Urologists (AFUF) in May 2018 in order to compare the average scores of these two populations. In addition, a questionnaire consisting of epidemiological data, their opinion on the quality of education in anatomy and the willingness to have more courses on this subject was included in the examination. The same scale based on a score out of 20 was applied to both populations. Of the 501 AFUF members solicited, 144 answered all the questions (28.7%). The mean score for urologists was lower than that of DFGSM3 students (10.56±1.82 vs. 11.4±2.37 respectively) (P=0.0013). Moreover, the desire for further education in anatomy was widespread among urologists (87%). According to our study, urologists have less knowledge of urogenital anatomy than third year medical students. Many means are being implemented or are available to rectify this failing, especially since the majority of trainee urologists consider that there are insufficient anatomy lessons in the curriculum and would like to receive further education in anatomy. LEVEL IF EVIDENCE: 3.

Assessment of oncological and functional outcomes of retropubic radical prostatectomy: An academic center experience.

PURPOSE: To report perioperative, pathological, oncological and functional outcomes of a contemporary series of retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP), performed by one experienced surgeon. METHODS: We analyzed data from a prospectively gathered database of consecutive patients who were treated by an RRP as first-line treatment for localized prostate cancer, from January 2014 to December 2019, in a single French academic center. RESULTS: Overall, 364 patients were included. Median age and PSA were 65.7 years and 8.0ng/mL. According to D'Amico risk classification, 13.7% patients had a low-risk prostate cancer, 41.5% a favorable intermediate-risk, 23.4% an unfavorable intermediate-risk and 21.4% a high-risk prostate cancer. The rates of pT2 and pT3 were 48.6% (n=177) and 51.4% (n=187), respectively. The rates of non-nerve sparing surgery (NSS), unilateral NSS and bilateral NSS were 19.5% (n=71), 32.7% (n=119) and 47.8% (n=174). Total positive surgical margin (PSM) rate was 12.6% (n=46). Total pT2 PSM and pT3 PSM rates were 0.6% (n=1) and 24.1% (n=45) and achieved a statistical difference (P<0.001). At a median follow-up of 1.9-year, biochemical recurrence (BCR) occurred in 47 (12,9%) patients. Extracapsular extension was associated with a poor BCR-free survival as compared to organ confined disease (P<0.0001). At 2.7 years of follow-up, urinary continence rate was 88% (322/364). After exclusion of non-NSS RRP and non-interpretable questionnaires (score 1-4), median IIEF-5 score was 16 (8-20). CONCLUSION: Retropubic radical prostatectomy ensures optimal pathological and functional results, in a current predominantly population of intermediate-risk prostate cancer and high-risk prostate cancer. 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.

[Living-donor robotic-assisted kidney transplantation: French academic center experience]. / Transplantation rénale robot-assistée avec donneur vivant : expérience d'un centre universitaire français.

INTRODUCTION: The main objective was to report the intra-, post-operative and functional outcomes of living-donor robotic-assisted kidney transplantation (RAKT), performed by a surgeon skilled in robotic surgery. The secondary objective was to compare the results of RAKT, based on the surgeon's experience. METHODS: For this retrospective cohort study, we analyzed data from consecutive patients who underwent living-donor RAKT from July 2015 to March 2020 and compared the results of RAKT according to the surgeon's experience (group 1: 1-14th RAKT versus group 2: 15-29th RAKT). RESULTS: Twenty-nine living-donor RAKT were performed. The median age and BMI of the recipients were: 57.0 (44.0-66.0) years and 32.7 (23.5-39.6)kg/m2. The median overall operative time and median console time were: 140.0 (122.5-165.0) and 120.0 (107.5-137.5) minutes. The median rewarming time, arterial, venous and urinary anastomoses durations were: 35.0 (27.5-45.0), 15.0 (11.0-20.0), 12.0 (10.0-16.0), 20.0 (16.0-23.0) minutes. Two (6.9%) minor and 5 (17.2%) major (Clavien-Dindo≥III) postoperative complications occurred. At 2 years of follow-up, patient and transplant survival was 100% (n=29) and 93.1% (n=27). After the 14th RAKT, the rewarming time (P=0.01) and venous anastomosis duration (P=0.004) were statistically shorter. CONCLUSION: Living-donor robotic-assisted kidney transplantation, performed by a surgeon skilled robotic surgery, ensures good functional results in the medium term. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

[Renal cell carcinoma of the kidney transplant: The French guidelines from CTAFU]. / Recommandations françaises du Comité de transplantation de l'association française d'urologie (CTAFU) : Carcinome à cellules rénales du transplant rénal.

OBJECTIVE: To propose recommendations for the management of renal cell carcinomas (RCC) of the renal transplant. METHOD: Following a systematic approach, a review of the literature (Medline) was conducted by the CTAFU to evaluate prevalence, diagnosis and management of RCC arousing in the renal transplant. References were assessed according to a predefined process to propose recommendations with levels of evidence. RESULTS: Renal cell carcinomas of the renal transplant affect approximately 0.2% of recipients. Mostly asymptomatic, these tumors are mainly diagnosed on a routine imaging of the renal transplant. Predominant pathology is clear cell carcinomas but papillary carcinomas are more frequent than in general population (up to 40-50%). RCC of the renal transplant is often localized, of low stage and low grade. According to tumor characteristics and renal function, preferred treatment is radical (transplantectomy) or nephron sparing through partial nephrectomy (open or minimally invasive approach) or thermoablation after percutaneous biopsy. Although no robust data support a switch of immunosuppressive regimen, some authors suggest to favor the use of mTOR inhibitors. CTAFU does not recommend a mandatory waiting time after transplantectomy for RCC in candidates for a subsequent renal tranplantation when tumor stage

[Urothelial carcinoma in kidney transplant recipients and candidates: The French guidelines from CTAFU]. / Recommandations françaises du Comité de transplantation de l'association française d'urologie (CTAFU) : carcinome urothélial chez le patient transplanté rénal et le candidat à la transplantation rénale.

OBJECTIVE: To propose surgical recommendations for urothelial carcinoma management in kidney transplant recipients and candidates. METHOD: A review of the literature (Medline) following a systematic approcah was conducted by the CTAFU regarding the epidemiology, screening, diagnosis and treatment of urothelial carcinoma in kidney transplant recipients and candidates for renal transplantation. References were assessed according to a predefined process to propose recommendations with levels of evidence. RESULTS: Urothelial carcinomas occur in the renal transplant recipient population with a 3-fold increased incidence as compared with general population. While major risk factors for urothelial carcinomas are similar to those in the general population, aristolochic acid nephropathy and BK virus infection are more frequent risk factors in renal transplant recipients. As compared with general population, NMIBC in the renal transplant recipients are associated with earlier and higher recurrence rate. The safety and efficacy of adjuvant intravesical therapies have been reported in retrospective series. Treatment for localized MIBC in renal transplant recipients is based on radical cystectomy. In the candidate for a kidney transplant with a history of urothelial tumor, it is imperative to perform follow-up cystoscopies according to the recommended frequency, depending on the risk of recurrence and progression of NMIBC and to maintain this follow-up at least every six months up to transplantation whatever the level of risk of recurrence and progression. Based on current data, the present recommendations propose guidelines for waiting period before active wait-listing renal transplant candidates with a history of urothelial carcinoma. CONCLUSION: The french recommendations from CTAFU should contribute to improve the management of urothelial carcinoma in renal transplant patients and renal transplant candidates by integrating both oncologic objectives and access to transplantation.