Should You Fix Testicular Prosthesis? A Satisfaction Survey From a Monocentric Cohort.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether testicular prosthesis should be fixed. METHODS: Retrospective monocentric study including 169 patients who had implantation of testicular prosthesis between January 2013 and December 2022. Patients answered a telephone questionnaire regarding prosthesis characteristics and satisfaction. RESULTS: Prosthesis was sutured for 59 patients (34.9%) out of 169. 146 patients answered the questionnaire. Satisfaction was excellent regarding size, weight, consistency, and shape. A position too high was a major complain in both groups. Pain and discomfort were significantly higher in the fixed group (30.8% vs 9.78%, P < .001). Few patients reported discomfort with the anchor prosthesis (22.9%). CONCLUSION: Overall satisfaction of the prosthesis is high but discomfort and high positioning are the two items remaining to improve. Our study suggests that fixing prosthesis is a cause of discomfort and won't allow a better positioning.

Operator-assisted vs self-achieved basketing during ureteroscopy: results from an in vitro preference study.

OBJECTIVES: A recently introduced device (LithoVue Empower™ or LE, Boston Scientifics, USA) allows the surgeon to directly control the stone-retrieving basket without the need of an assistant during flexible ureteroscopy. We aimed to evaluate the stone-retrieval performance of this device. METHODS: We used a bench-training model for flexible ureteroscopy, the Key-box (K-Box®, Porgès-Coloplast, France), to compare the LE configured with a 1.9F stone-retrieval tipless basket (ZeroTip™, Boston Scientific, USA) and a traditional assistant-maneuvered 1.9F stone-retrieval tipless basket. Seven experienced endo-urologists and seven residents-in-training retrieved a fake stone from three different renal cavities of the K-Box with increasing access complexity first with the traditional basket and then with the LE device. We recorded retrieval time and all the operators filled in the NASA Task Load Index (TLI) for the self-evaluation of their performance. We then compared the use of LE in terms of retrieval time, failure rates, and NASA-TLI scores. RESULTS: Stone retrieval times and failure rates were similar according to the retrieval technique, although residents had non-statistically significant shorter times with the LE. NASA-TLI scores revealed lower frustration (p = 0.03) when LE was used by experienced urologists as compared to the traditional basketing. When stratifying the analyses according to surgical experience, fully trained urologists performed faster stone retrieval and showed lower effort scores than residents-in-training (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The individually controlled retrieval system is an effective device assisting stone retrieval and does not necessitate specific training among experienced endo-urologists. Young residents might benefit from LE during their learning curve.