Journal of pediatric surgery · 2003
Laparoscopy for nonpalpable testes.
Клиническое исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Alam Shumyle, Radhakrishnan Jayant
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Laparoscopy is now considered integral to the management of nonpalpable testes, although its benefits are not clearly documented. The authors prospectively determined the value of laparoscopy in patients with nonpalpable testes.
METHODS: Between December 1997 and October 2001, 37 patients with 40 nonpalpable testes were scheduled for laparoscopy followed by definitive treatment. Laparoscopy was cancelled in 4 patients (5 testes) because their testes became palpable under anesthesia. In the remaining 33 patients (35 testes), it was determined at the time of surgery whether, as a consequence of laparoscopy: (1) retroperitoneal exploration was avoided (2) definitive treatment was facilitated.
RESULTS: Laparoscopy did not alter the management of 27 testes (77%) that were treated through an inguinal incision with orchiopexy for 17 testes (6 intraabdominal and 9 at the deep ring) and removal of 10 atrophic nubbins. It was only useful in avoiding retroperitoneal dissection for 5 (14%) vanishing testes, and it may have been of benefit for 3 testes treated with a 2-stage Fowler-Stephens orchiopexy.
CONCLUSIONS: The majority of our patients with nonpalpable testes could have been treated through an inguinal incision with laparoscopy being reserved for situations in which the testis was not identified on inguinal exploration.
METHODS: Between December 1997 and October 2001, 37 patients with 40 nonpalpable testes were scheduled for laparoscopy followed by definitive treatment. Laparoscopy was cancelled in 4 patients (5 testes) because their testes became palpable under anesthesia. In the remaining 33 patients (35 testes), it was determined at the time of surgery whether, as a consequence of laparoscopy: (1) retroperitoneal exploration was avoided (2) definitive treatment was facilitated.
RESULTS: Laparoscopy did not alter the management of 27 testes (77%) that were treated through an inguinal incision with orchiopexy for 17 testes (6 intraabdominal and 9 at the deep ring) and removal of 10 atrophic nubbins. It was only useful in avoiding retroperitoneal dissection for 5 (14%) vanishing testes, and it may have been of benefit for 3 testes treated with a 2-stage Fowler-Stephens orchiopexy.
CONCLUSIONS: The majority of our patients with nonpalpable testes could have been treated through an inguinal incision with laparoscopy being reserved for situations in which the testis was not identified on inguinal exploration.