[Epidemiology of urinary stones in the French military during the operation Serval]

The medical and operational impact of the deployment of a scanner within Role 2 in Mali for the French army

INTRODUCTION

According to the NATO classification, the difference between Role 2 and Role 2+ is the presence of extra diagnostic and therapeutic means, including the deployment of a scanner. The aim of this study is to analyze the impact of this deployment at the front, in the Gao French Role 2 (Mali). Our main hypothesis is that the presence of a scanner at the front improves the servicemen's diagnostic and therapeutic management abilities. Secondly that scanner holds strategic relevance by limiting the repatriation of servicemen on medical grounds.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A prospective analytical observational study was conducted over 6 months within Gao's Role 2. All the French military patients who received a scanner were involved. The collected data was epidemiological, clinical and radiological in nature, and included the results from the scanner and data regarding the operational impact (repatriation). The principal judgment criterion was the rate of modification of the therapeutic decision. The secondary criterion was the modification of the repatriation decision on medical grounds.

RESULTS

Of the 45 patients examined, in 14 cases (31.1%), performing a scanner changed patients' therapeutic management in relation to the management, which would have been conducted in the scanner's absence. For 12 of these patients (85.7%), the indication of the scanner concerned visceral or cranium-spine pathologies. For 33 patients (73.3%), the scanner enabled diagnosis via the elimination of an organic injury or a severity criterion. The repatriation decision remained unchanged for many patients.

DISCUSSION

The scanner appears to be a significant factor in the initial therapeutic decision. Scanning made it possible to clarify the diagnosis and to better adapt the initial therapeutic decision. In contrast, the operational impact was null. The literature highlights the relevance of scanner in surgical abstention (limiting unnecessary operative procedures), and for the visceral, cranium-cerebral and spine pathologies in an emergency.

CONCLUSION

The scanner, a heavy logistic unit deployed within a forward surgical unit, holds therapeutic relevance for French servicemen's management with an important medical service provided for the therapeutic choices, although its operational impact has yet to be demonstrated.

[Result of treatment of urinary lithiasis for professional aptitude]

INTRODUCTION

Military people are inapt for presence of urinary stones. In this specific population, the treatment of stones is even more aggressive than for the general population without recommendation. The final decision about aptitude is the responsibility of the military doctor. Whereas, ureteroscopy has its place there and must done by any urologist.

METHODS

The purpose of this study was to estimate the results of treatments by ureteroscopy in this population. Success was defined by the complete absence of fragment visualized in the imaging of control operating comment and so the end of the inaptitude time.

RESULTS

Between 2009 and 2016, forty-two were treated for ureteral or renal calculi. The population comprises of 93% men, 35 years old on average. The stones were mainly multiple (more 2) and the medium size is 5mm; sixteen (42.9%) was at the left and eight (19%) was bilateral. In 78.8% (78) of the cases there was a stone in renal position whose 50% (39) still at the lower calyx. In total, 5% of the patients were stone-free in 2 sessions on average. The average deadline of inaptitude of the initial consultation in the resumption of work was of 6 months. In 4% of the cases there was a complication operating rank 4.

CONCLUSION

This study confirms the feasibility, the weak harmlessness of ureteroscopy and the lesser deadline of inaptitude. Every urologist can treat this specific population. The patient must be informed and accept the treatment because of excluding referential.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

4.