ArticleEinstein (Sao Paulo, Brazil)2021
Comparison of outcomes and costs of surgery versus sclerotherapy to treat hydrocele.
Article in Einstein (Sao Paulo, Brazil), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Aspiration and sclerotherapy versus hydrocelectomy for treating hydroceles: a systematic review and meta-analyses.Surgical endoscopy · 2023Pooled it
- A self-treatment case report: curing hydrocele by intracapsular injection of polidocanol.American journal of translational research · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the outcomes and costs associated with surgery versus sclerotherapy as treatment of hydroceles.
methodsA total of 53 men consecutively treated for hydrocele at our organization, between December 2015 and June 2019, were retrospectively analyzed (39 with Jaboulay technique and 14 with sclerotherapy). All charts were reviewed, assessing clinical data, ultrasound findings, surgical data, and post-procedure outcomes. The hospital finance department calculated the cost of outpatient evaluation, complementary tests, supplies, drugs, and professionals' costs throughout all procedures.
resultsThe median age for both groups was similar (58 and 65 years old). Comorbidities were less frequent in the Surgery Group (20; 51%) than in the Sclerotherapy Group (14; 100%, p<0.05). The median length of hospital stay was 34.5±16.3 hours for the Surgery Group and 4 hours for the Sclerotherapy Group. The mean follow-up period was similar for both groups (85.4±114.8 days after surgery, and 60.9±80.1 days after sclerotherapy, p=0.467). No significant complications occurred in any patient. Success rates were 94.8% after surgery and 92.8% after sclerotherapy. The mean cost per patient was US$2,558.69 in the Surgery Group (Hydrocelectomy Group) and US$463.58 in the Sclerotherapy Group (p<0.0001). Costs directly related to in-hospital treatment procedures were significantly higher for surgery versus sclerotherapy (US$2,219.82±US$1,629.06 versus US$130.64±US$249.60; p<0.0001).
conclusionSclerotherapy is an excellent treatment option for idiopathic hydrocele as compared to traditional Jaboulay. It has a high success rate, low complication rates, fast discharge and patients return quicker to activities of daily living.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.