Abstract

Objective: In this study, we investigated the types of cases referred to urologists by judicial authorities and how the reported results affect the court results.

Materials and methods: Between May 2006 and July 2010, 524 files that were sent to urology clinic by judicial authorities were investigated. Of these cases, 311 were to investigate male sexual dysfunction, 152 lower urinary system dysfunction, 22 sex determination, and 39 fertilizing ability of the patients. 

Results: Of 524 lawsuits, 427 were resulted, and the case file results were in line with all of the forensic medicine reports. Of 311 case files about sexual dysfunction 290 were resulted. In 49 of these patients (16.9%), a pathology that can cause erectile dysfunction was detected (p=0.41). Of 110 cases investigated for lower urinary tract dysfunction, urology reports related with the case were obtained in 98 subjects (89.1%) (p<0.001). All of the 15 cases with sex determination and 12 patients with fertilization investigation had court results that were in line with urologic reports.

Conclusion: The forensic cases have started to occupy an important place in daily urological practice. Among these cases, evaluation and determining the sexual function was one of the most difficult cases. These cases should be evaluated with nocturnal penile tumescence test, and if needed, should be referred to appropriate centers for this aim.