ReviewCureus2025
Subinguinal Orchidectomy for Testicular Cancer: Innovation or Unnecessary Advancement.
Review in Cureus, 2025. 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.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Subinguinal orchidectomy is a variation of the traditional high inguinal approach for testicular cancer, differing in the level of spermatic cord excision. While the subinguinal approach preserves the inguinal canal and ilioinguinal nerve, concerns remain about the residual disease in the proximal cord and its impact on oncological outcomes. This review evaluates oncological outcomes and complications of subinguinal orchidectomy. A search was conducted across five databases (PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library, and Embase). Studies reporting inguinal versus subinguinal orchidectomies, tumor grade, oncological outcomes, complications, and follow-up were included. Descriptive statistics were performed using Microsoft Excel (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA). Of the 25 studies screened, two were eligible for review, including data from 264 patients (2000-2024). Subinguinal orchidectomy was done in 54.7% (n=144) of cases. Unsatisfactory oncological control was observed in 12.5% (n=18) of subinguinal cases, with 78% (n=14) due to cancer relapse, 16.5% (n=3) due to spermatic cord invasion (SCI), and 5.5% (n=1) due to positive margins. One study comparing subinguinal and high inguinal approaches found no differences in oncological outcomes for stage 1 and stage 2-4 cancers (p=0.91 and p=0.78, respectively). One study reported that 9.5% of patients who underwent subinguinal orchidectomy (n=4) developed seromas postoperatively. Current evidence, though limited, suggests no significant differences in oncological outcomes between subinguinal and high-inguinal orchidectomies. While retrospective studies support this, prospective trials are required to better evaluate the oncological risk-benefit ratio of subinguinal orchidectomy.
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.