ArticleInternational urology and nephrology2026
Hydrocelectomy under local anesthesia with systemic analgesic support: real-world feasibility and patient acceptance.
Article in International urology and nephrology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Comparative outcomes of minimal-incision versus standard hydrocelectomy: reduced bleeding and healthcare utilization in a multi-surgeon cohort.Translational andrology and urology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeFollowing implementation of a standardized hydrocelectomy protocol under local anesthesia combined with systemic analgesia at a tertiary referral center, we evaluated its feasibility, safety, and patient acceptance.
methodsIn this retrospective single-center study, 35 consecutive patients underwent hydrocelectomy between May 2024 and August 2025 via a standardized in situ spermatic cord block. All patients received protocol-based systemic analgesia (1 g metamizole i.v. and 7.5 mg piritramide s.c.). Anticoagulants were paused 48 h preoperatively and resumed postoperatively, while antiplatelet therapy was continued. The primary endpoint was completion without conversion to analgosedation or general anesthesia. Secondary endpoints included procedural pain (VAS), postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo), and patient satisfaction.
resultsHydrocelectomy was completed under local anesthesia and systemic analgesic support in 33/35 patients (94%). One patient required conversion to analgosedation, one to general anesthesia. Seventeen patients (48.5%) were ASA III-IV. Median peak procedural pain was moderate (VAS 6, IQR 0-8) and inversely correlated with age (ρ = - 0.485, p = 0.005). Two patients (5.7%) required surgical revision (Clavien-Dindo IIIb), and four minor complications were managed conservatively. No complications were attributed to the anesthetic technique, and no recurrence occurred within 90 days. Overall, 87.5% of patients were satisfied and would recommend it.
conclusionHydrocelectomy under local anesthesia combined with systemic analgesia is feasible, safe, and well tolerated. Despite transient moderate procedural pain, most patients did not require conversion to procedural sedation or general anesthesia, with high satisfaction. These results support a patient-centered, resource-efficient approach, particularly for older and comorbid patients, including those with ASA III-IV classification, and warrant further prospective evaluation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42026398What 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.