Shaoguang Feng1, Huajun Yang1, Xiang Li1, Junjia Yang1, Jie Zhang1, Aihe Wang1, Xin-He Lai2, Yuhui Qiu3. 1. Department of Pediatric Surgery, Hangzhou Children's Hospital, No. 195 Wenhui Rd, Xiacheng district, Hangzhou, 310015, China. 2. Institute of Inflammation and Diseases, The First Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, China. 3. Department of Pediatric Surgery, Hangzhou Children's Hospital, No. 195 Wenhui Rd, Xiacheng district, Hangzhou, 310015, China. hzchfeng123@163.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety between single-incision, transscrotal orchidopexy, and the traditional inguinal orchidopexy in children. METHODS: A systematic search of the electronic databases was conducted to identify studies compared the transscrotal orchidopexy (SO) and inguinal orchidopexy (IO) for children. Parameters, such as operative time, the incidence of patent processus vaginalis, and postoperative complications, including wound infection, testicular atrophy, testicular reascent, hernia, or hydrocele, were pooled and compared by meta-analysis. RESULTS: Among the 1376 children with palpable undescended testes (UDTs) included in the eight studies, 697 had received SO and 679 IO. There were shorter operative times with the SO approach compared with IO. However, no significant difference was found between SO and IO in the incidence of patent processus vaginalis and postoperative complications, including wound infection, testicular atrophy, testicular reascent, and hernia. CONCLUSION: SO is a safe and effective surgical approach alternative to IO for pediatric UDTs. Compared with IO, SO has the advantage of shorter operative times. Besides, the incidence of postoperative wound infection may be slightly lower in SO. We suggest that SO should be considered as an acceptable option for children with UDTs.
PURPOSE: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety between single-incision, transscrotal orchidopexy, and the traditional inguinal orchidopexy in children. METHODS: A systematic search of the electronic databases was conducted to identify studies compared the transscrotal orchidopexy (SO) and inguinal orchidopexy (IO) for children. Parameters, such as operative time, the incidence of patent processus vaginalis, and postoperative complications, including wound infection, testicular atrophy, testicular reascent, hernia, or hydrocele, were pooled and compared by meta-analysis. RESULTS: Among the 1376 children with palpable undescended testes (UDTs) included in the eight studies, 697 had received SO and 679 IO. There were shorter operative times with the SO approach compared with IO. However, no significant difference was found between SO and IO in the incidence of patent processus vaginalis and postoperative complications, including wound infection, testicular atrophy, testicular reascent, and hernia. CONCLUSION:SO is a safe and effective surgical approach alternative to IO for pediatric UDTs. Compared with IO, SO has the advantage of shorter operative times. Besides, the incidence of postoperative wound infection may be slightly lower in SO. We suggest that SO should be considered as an acceptable option for children with UDTs.
Authors: Seong Woong Na; Sun-Ouck Kim; Eu Chang Hwang; Kyung Jin Oh; Seung Il Jeong; Taek Won Kang; Dong Deuk Kwon; Kwangsung Park; Soo Bang Ryu Journal: Korean J Urol Date: 2011-09-28