Surgical Management of Undescended Testis in Infants, Single Scrotal Incision Orchiopexy Versus Traditional Inguinal Approach: A Comparative Study

Omar Atef Elekiabi, E. Oraby, M. Zaitoun, Abdelwahab Saleh Almoregy
{"title":"Surgical Management of Undescended Testis in Infants, Single Scrotal Incision Orchiopexy Versus Traditional Inguinal Approach: A Comparative Study","authors":"Omar Atef Elekiabi, E. Oraby, M. Zaitoun, Abdelwahab Saleh Almoregy","doi":"10.11648/J.JS.20200805.13","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Surgical intervention is mostly needed in many cases of undescended testis to improve fertility; it is still unsure which approach is better than the other in management of undescended testicle in infants; classic inguinal approach or scrotal single incision approach. Aim of the current study was to compare between classic inguinal approach and scrotal single incision approach to perform orchiopexy for management of un-descended testis in infants and to clarify which is better; inguinal orchidopexy or scrotal orchidopexy. Patients and methods: we included forty male patients with undescended testis who were divided into two groups; group A included twenty patients and they were surgically managed with single trans-scrotal orchiopexy and group B included twenty patients and they were surgically managed with classic inguinal approach by two incisions (inguinal and scrotal). We assessed operative time and complications as wound infection, recurrence and testicular atrophy. Results: Operative time in group A was shorter than the operative time of group B which was managed by the inguinal approach (p=0.004). Immediate post-operative complications as; skin site infection, hematoma and edema, in group A were slightly more than the complications in group B (p=0.002). group A showed no recurrence or testicular atrophy after six months while group B showed 2 cases of recurrence and one case of testicular atrophy (p=0.005). At three months after surgery, cosmetic results and patients satisfaction of the incision scar was higher in group A than group B (p<0.001). Conclusions: performing orchiopexy through single scrotal incision approach is better than the approach of inguinal incision regarding operative time, rabid healing time, parents’ satisfaction, fewer long-term complications, less incidence of testicular atrophy and recurrence.","PeriodicalId":101237,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of Surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-09-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.11648/J.JS.20200805.13","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Surgical intervention is mostly needed in many cases of undescended testis to improve fertility; it is still unsure which approach is better than the other in management of undescended testicle in infants; classic inguinal approach or scrotal single incision approach. Aim of the current study was to compare between classic inguinal approach and scrotal single incision approach to perform orchiopexy for management of un-descended testis in infants and to clarify which is better; inguinal orchidopexy or scrotal orchidopexy. Patients and methods: we included forty male patients with undescended testis who were divided into two groups; group A included twenty patients and they were surgically managed with single trans-scrotal orchiopexy and group B included twenty patients and they were surgically managed with classic inguinal approach by two incisions (inguinal and scrotal). We assessed operative time and complications as wound infection, recurrence and testicular atrophy. Results: Operative time in group A was shorter than the operative time of group B which was managed by the inguinal approach (p=0.004). Immediate post-operative complications as; skin site infection, hematoma and edema, in group A were slightly more than the complications in group B (p=0.002). group A showed no recurrence or testicular atrophy after six months while group B showed 2 cases of recurrence and one case of testicular atrophy (p=0.005). At three months after surgery, cosmetic results and patients satisfaction of the incision scar was higher in group A than group B (p<0.001). Conclusions: performing orchiopexy through single scrotal incision approach is better than the approach of inguinal incision regarding operative time, rabid healing time, parents’ satisfaction, fewer long-term complications, less incidence of testicular atrophy and recurrence.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
单阴囊切开睾丸切开术与传统腹股沟入路治疗婴幼儿隐睾的比较研究
背景:许多隐睾患者大多需要手术干预以提高生育能力;目前仍不确定哪种方法比其他方法更适合治疗婴儿睾丸肿大;经典的腹股沟入路或阴囊单切口入路。本研究的目的是比较经典的腹股沟入路和阴囊单切口入路行睾丸切除术治疗婴儿未下降睾丸的效果,并明确哪一种方法更好;腹股沟睾丸切除术或阴囊睾丸切除术。患者和方法:我们将40例男性隐睾患者分为两组;A组20例采用单次经阴囊睾丸切开术,B组20例采用经典腹股沟双切口(腹股沟和阴囊)入路手术。我们评估了手术时间和并发症,如伤口感染、复发和睾丸萎缩。结果:A组手术时间短于经腹股沟入路的B组(p=0.004)。术后即刻并发症为;A组皮肤部位感染、血肿、水肿发生率略高于B组(p=0.002)。A组术后6个月无复发、无睾丸萎缩,B组术后2例复发、1例睾丸萎缩(p=0.005)。术后3个月,A组的美容效果和患者对切口疤痕的满意度均高于B组(p<0.001)。结论:单阴囊切口行睾丸切除术在手术时间、愈合时间快、家长满意度、长期并发症少、睾丸萎缩及复发率等方面均优于腹股沟切口。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
A Case Report of Mesenteric Ischemia After COVID-19 Vaccination Short Term Outcomes of Laparoscopic Roux-En-Y Gastric Bypass Versus Laparoscopic One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass in Super Obese Patients: Randomized Clinical Trial The Intraoperative Finding of a Large Atrial Septum Defect Pre-Liver Transplantation: A Case Report Study on Preventive Intervention of Peri-knee Ecchymosis After Total Knee Replacement Late Primary B Cell Cerebral Lymphoma After Kidney Transplant: A Case Report and Literature Review
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1