ArticleUrology annals
Techniques of staged laparoscopic orchidopexy for high intra-abdominal testes in children: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Urology annals. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Background: Laparoscopic exploration is currently considered the gold standard for managing nonpalpable intraabdominal testes. The problem of short vascular pedicle is addressed in Fowler-Stephen (FS) technique by the division of testicular vessels and in Shehata technique (ST) by traction on testicular vessels. There is a lack of the consensus among pediatric surgeons on the choice of one technique over other. This analysis compares the reported outcomes of staged laparoscopic orchidopexy by ST with the time tested FS technique in managing high intraabdominal undescended testis. Materials and Methods: The present systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted as per the preferred reporting items for the systematic review and meta-analyses guidelines. Only randomized controlled trials and comparative studies were included. The primary outcomes compared were the incidence of testicular atrophy, testicular retraction/ascent rate, and operative time of Stage I and Stage II orchidopexy. Results: The present analysis was based on three randomized studies with a total of 119 undescended testes in 117 patients satisfying the inclusion criteria. The operative time was less in Stage I FS technique; however, there was no statistically significant difference in operative time of both procedures during the Stage II laparoscopic orchidopexy. Pooled analysis of postintervention testicular atrophy, testicular retraction rate, and duration of postoperative hospitalization showed no difference between both procedures. Conclusion: Both FS and STs are comparable in terms of postintervention testicular atrophy, testicular retraction/ascent; however, the mean operative time is significantly less with FS technique in Stage I laparoscopic orchidopexy.
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.