SynthesisPediatric surgery international2023
'Waterproofing layers' for urethrocutaneous fistula repair after hypospadias surgery: evidence synthesis with systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Pediatric surgery international, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 3 of them syntheses 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The effect of autologous platelet-rich treatment in hypospadias repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Pediatric surgery international · 2026Pooled it
- Prenatal imaging for hypospadias: a bayesian analysis-based systematic review of diagnostic accuracy and key imaging features.Pediatric surgery international · 2025Pooled it
- Impact of second-layer coverages on complication rates in primary tubularized incised plate urethroplasty (TIPU) for distal and midpenile hypospadias repair: a systematic review.Pediatric surgery international · 2025Pooled it
- Nomogram-based prediction of postoperative complications in patients with hypospadias after perididymis covering.Translational pediatrics · 2025Article
- Glans-Urethral Meatus-Shaft (GMS) Scoring System in Hypospadias: A Multicontinental Systematic Review and Meta analysis.Journal of Indian Association of Pediatric SurgeonsReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo summarize the available evidence and to quantitatively evaluate the global results of different waterproofing layers in substantiating the UCF repair. MATERIAL AND
methodsAfter defining the study protocol, the review was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines by a team comprising experts in hypospadiology, systematic reviews and meta-analysis, epidemiology, biostatistics and data science. Studies published from 2000 onwards, reporting on the results of UCF closure after hypospadias repair were searched for on PUBMED, Embase and Google Scholar. Study quality was assessed using Joanna Briggs Checklist (JBI) critical appraisal tool. The results with different techniques were compared with the two samples independent proportions test with the help of Microsoft Excel, MedCalc software and an online calculator.
resultsSeventy-three studies were shortlisted for the synthesis; the final analysis included 2886 patients (71 studies) with UCF repair failure in 539. A summary of various dimensions involved with the UCF repair has been generated including time gap after last surgery, stent-vs-no stent, supra-pubic catheterization, suture material, suturing technique, associated anomalies, complications, etc. The success rates associated with different techniques were calculated and compared: simple catheterization (100%), simple primary closure (73.2%), dartos (78.8%), double dartos flaps (81%), scrotal flaps (94.6%), tunica vaginalis (94.3%), PATIO repair (93.5%), biomaterials or dermal substitutes (92%), biocompatible adhesives (56.5%) and skin-based flaps (54.5%). Several techniques were identified as solitary publications and discussed.
conclusionsTunica vaginalis and scrotal flaps offer the best results after UCF closure in the synthesis. However, it is not possible to label any technique as ideal or perfect. Almost all popular waterproofing layers have depicted absolute (100%) success sometimes. There are a vast number of other factors (patient's local anatomy, surgeon's expertise and technical perspectives) which influence the final outcome.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37010625What 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.