ArticleFrontiers in surgery2022
The Application of Scrotoscope-Assisted Minimally Invasive Excision for Epididymal Mass: An Initial Report.
Article in Frontiers in surgery, 2022. 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Epididymal cysts in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis of treatment approaches and clinical outcomes.European journal of pediatrics · 2026Pooled it
- Case report: Two cases of primary paratesticular liposarcoma.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: To compare the middle-term efficacy and safety results between scrotoscope-assisted (SA) minimally invasive excision and traditional open excision (OE) for the treatment of epididymal mass. Methods: A total of 253 males with surgery excision of epididymal mass from 2012 to 2018 were included in this retrospective study. Patients were divided into two groups: the traditional OE group and the SA group. Patient demographics and intraoperative and postoperative outcomes were obtained and compared between these two groups. Results: About 174 patients (68.8%) underwent SA, and the other 79 (31.2%) underwent OE. Demographic data were similar between the two groups. Compared with OE surgery, SA could significantly shorten the operating time (19.4 ± 4.1 vs. 53.8 ± 12.9 min), reduce blood loss (5.3 ± 1.5 vs. 21.3 ± 5.6 ml), and downsize the operative incision (1.5 ± 0.3 vs. 4.5 ± 0.8 cm). Additionally, postoperative complications were significantly less occurred in the SA group than those in OE (15.5% vs. 21.5%), in particular scrotal hematoma (1.7% vs. 12.7%) and incision discomfort (2.8% vs. 6.3%). Patients in the SA group had a significantly higher overall satisfaction score (94.8 ± 3.7 vs. 91.7 ± 4.9) and a significantly shorter length of hospital stay (4.1 ± 0.9 vs. 5.0 ± 1.5 days) than those in the OE group. No postoperative testicular atrophy occurred in the SA group. Conclusion: SA is emerging as a novel and effective option with promising perspectives for epididymal mass therapy.
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.