The Canadian journal of urology · 2026
Effectiveness of manual detorsion in the treatment of testicular torsion: systematic review and meta-analysis.
СтатьяСистематический обзорМетаанализНазвание 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.
Kılıç Sinan
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: Testicular 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.
METHODS: A 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.
RESULTS: Eight 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).
CONCLUSION: Manual 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.
METHODS: A 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.
RESULTS: Eight 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).
CONCLUSION: Manual 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.