SynthesisThe Canadian journal of urology2026
Effectiveness of manual detorsion in the treatment of testicular torsion: systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in The Canadian journal of urology, 2026. 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTesticular torsion is the most common surgical cause of an acute scrotum. Manuel detorsion renewed attention as a practical initial treatment, particularly in the COVID-19 pandemic. This study aims to systematically review and meta-analyze the current literature to determine whether manual detorsion offers a viable alternative to immediate surgery in improving testicular salvage rates.
methodsA systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines and registered with PROSPERO (CRD420251039489). Studies including ≥30 male patients comparing manual detorsion and surgical exploration were included. Searches were performed in PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, TR Index, and Web of Science. Risk of bias was assessed using a predefined scoring system based on methodology, sample size, and follow-up objectivity. Data were synthesized using RevMan 5.4 to calculate pooled risk ratios.
resultsEight retrospective studies involving a total of 670 patients were included. Patients were divided into a manual detorsion group (G1, n = 394) and a surgical exploration group (G2, n = 316). Success rates of manual detorsion ranged from 15% to 76%, while orchiectomy rates were lower in G1 (0% to 10.3%) compared to G2 (0% to 43.8%). The pooled success rate of manual detorsion was 75.7%. Although orchiectomy rates appeared numerically lower in the manual detorsion group (3.8% vs. 29.2%), the pooled analysis did not demonstrate a statistically significant overall difference between the two groups (risk ratio [RR] = 1.23; 95% CI: 0.82-1.84; p = 0.31).
conclusionManual detorsion appears time-saving and effective maneuver. To our knowledge, this is the first meta-analysis focused exclusively on manual detorsion, and it supports its consideration as an initial management strategy in selected clinical scenarios.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42415571What 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.