Pediatric surgery international · 2016
Single scrotal incision orchiopexy versus the inguinal approach in children with palpable undescended testis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
СтатьяМетаанализСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Feng Shaoguang, Yang Huajun, Li Xiang, Yang Junjia, Zhang Jie, Wang Aihe, Lai Xin-He, Qiu Yuhui
Аннотация
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.
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.