ArticlePakistan journal of medical sciences
Comparison of clinical outcomes between laparoscopic orchiopexy and open orchiopexy in the treatment of palpable undescended testes.
Article in Pakistan journal of medical sciences. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Laparoscopic versus open orchiopexy in high inguinal undescended testes, randomized clinical trial.International urology and nephrology · 2024Trial
- Clinical efficacy of single-port transscrotal laparoscopic orchiopexy combined with hernia needle for palpable undescended testes in children.BMC pediatrics · 2026Article
- Laparoscopy in pediatric urology: from inception to innovation - a comprehensive review.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2025Review
- Utility of diffusion weighted Magnetic Resonance Imagining to detect non-palpable undescended testis.Pakistan journal of medical sciences · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To compare the clinical effects of laparoscopic orchiopexy (LO) and open orchiopexy (OO) in the treatment of palpable undescended testes. Methods: Seventy-six children with palpable undescended testes treated in Zaozhuang Municipal Hospital from June 2019 to January 2021 were selected in this observational retrospective study. Patients were grouped according to their different surgical methods, 33 patients received OO (Open-group) and 43 patients received LO (Laparoscopic-group). The clinical outcomes of the two groups were compared, including surgical-related indicators, near and long-term surgical complications and postoperative testicular growth. Results: Operation time, intraoperative bleeding, first ambulation time and hospitalization time in the Laparoscopic-group were lower than those in the Open-group (p<0.05). The short-term complication rate in the Laparoscopic-group was lower than that in the Open-group (2.27% vs 15.15%; p<0.05), but the long-term complication rate in the Laparoscopic-group was not significantly different from the Open-group (4.65% vs 3.03%; p>0.05). Follow-up was up to 18 months post-operation, with the rate of testicular growth (97.67% vs 96.97%; p>0.05) and testicular volume (0.59 ± 0.14ml vs 0.58 ± 0.12ml p>0.05) not significantly different between the Laparoscopic-group or Open-group respectively. Conclusion: LO is as clinically effective as OO in the treatment of palpable undescended testes, however, shorter operation time, less intraoperative bleeding and rapid recovery time have been noted with LO.
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.