SynthesisPediatric surgery international2024
Comparison of scrotal and inguinal orchiopexy for palpable undescended testis: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in Pediatric surgery international, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Research progress on testicular torsion secondary to inguinal cryptorchidism.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2026Review
- Parascrotal Approach for Orchiopexy in Perineal Ectopic Testes: Our Experience Over 10 Years.Journal of Indian Association of Pediatric SurgeonsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionScrotal and inguinal orchiopexy are two commonly used surgical approaches for palpable undescended testis (UDT), each with distinct advantages. However, the optimal approach remains a matter of debate, warranting a comprehensive meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to guide clinical decision-making. MATERIALS AND
methodsA comprehensive literature search was conducted, adhering to PRISMA guidelines, to select RCTs comparing scrotal and inguinal orchiopexy for palpable UDT. Eight RCTs were selected for meta-analysis. Outcome measures included operative time, hospitalization duration, total complications, wound infection or dehiscence, testicular atrophy or hypotrophy, and testicular re-ascent rate. The evaluation of the study's quality was conducted by utilizing the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool.
resultsScrotal orchiopexy showed significantly shorter operative time compared to the inguinal approach (WMD: - 15.06 min; 95% CI: - 21.04 to - 9.08). However, there was no significant difference in hospitalization duration (WMD: - 0.72 days; 95% CI: - 1.89-0.45), total complications (OR: 1.08; 95% CI: 0.70-1.66), wound infection or dehiscence (OR: 0.73; 95% CI: 0.27-1.99), testicular atrophy or hypotrophy (OR: 1.03; 95% CI: 0.38-2.78), and testicular re-ascent (OR: 1.43; 95% CI: 0.67-3.06) between the two approaches. A small proportion of cases (7.3%) required conversion from scrotal to inguinal orchiopexy due to specific anatomical challenges.
conclusionBoth scrotal and inguinal orchiopexy are safe and effective for palpable UDT, with comparable outcomes in terms of hospitalization and complications. Scrotal orchiopexy offers the advantage of shorter operative time. Clinicians can use this evidence to make informed decisions on the surgical approach for palpable UDT.
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.