Korean J Urol.  2011 Sep;52(9):637-641.

Single Scrotal Incision Orchiopexy for Children with Palpable Low-Lying Undescended Testis: Early Outcome of a Prospective Randomized Controlled Study

• Na SW
• Kim SO
• Hwang EC
• Oh KJ
• Jeong SI
• Kang TW
• Kwon DD
• Park K
• Ryu SB

Abstract

PURPOSE
We prospectively evaluated the surgical outcomes of single scrotal incision orchiopexy in children with a palpable undescended testis compared with the traditional two incision orchiopexy.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A total of 398 orchiopexies (292 children) were included and randomly assigned to the single scrotal incision orchiopexy group (Group I, 147 children, 201 testes) or the traditional inguinal incision orchiopexy group (Group II, 145 children, 197 testes). The final number of patients enrolled (excluding those lost to follow-up) was 107 children (146 testes) in group I and 105 children (141 testes) in group II. Success was defined as no complications, postoperative intrascrotal location of the testis, and no conversion to the traditional inguinal approach. Surgical outcomes and complications were compared between the two groups. Testicular location, complications, and subjective satisfaction rate were assessed at the follow-up evaluation at least 12 months postoperatively.
RESULTS
The overall success rate in group I was 92.5% in 135 of 146 testes; the remaining 9 testes required conversion to traditional two incision orchiopexy. In group II, orchiopexy was successful in 136 of 141 testes (96.5%). The operation time and hospital stay were significantly shorter in group I (40.5+/-25.9 minutes, 2.1+/-0.8 days) than in group II (62.3+/-35.6 minutes, 2.5+/-0.7 days), respectively (p<0.001, p=0.03). Postoperative complications were found in two cases (hematoma, wound dehiscence) in group I and in one case (wound dehiscence) in group II; all cases with complications recovered with conservative care. The subjective rate of satisfaction with the cosmetic result was 96.6% in group I and 96.5% in group II (p=0.97).
CONCLUSIONS
We conclude that single scrotal incision orchiopexy is a simple technique that is associated with a shorter operation time and hospital stay than the traditional method and that is more feasible cosmetically.

Keyword

Cryptorchidism; Orchiopexy; Scrotum; Testis

MeSH Terms

Child
Cosmetics
Cryptorchidism
Follow-Up Studies
Humans
Length of Stay
Male
Orchiopexy
Postoperative Complications
Prospective Studies
Scrotum
Testis
Cosmetics

Figure

• 

  FIG. 1 Disposition of subjects assigned to the study.

Reference

1. Berkowitz GS, Lapinski RH, Dolgin SE, Gazella JG, Bodian CA, Holzman IR. Prevalence and natural history of cryptorchidism. Pediatrics. 1993. 92:44–49.

2. Clarnette TD, Rowe D, Hasthorpe S, Hutson JM. Incomplete disappearance of the processus vaginalis as a cause of ascending testis. J Urol. 1997. 157:1889–1891.

3. Engeler DS, Hösli PO, John H, Bannwart F, Sulser T, Amin MB, et al. Early orchiopexy: prepubertal intratubular germ cell neoplasia and fertility outcome. Urology. 2000. 56:144–148.

4. Ritchey ML, Bloom DA. Modified dartos pouch orchiopexy. Urology. 1995. 45:136–138.

5. Bianchi A, Squire BR. Transscrotal orchidopexy: orchidopexy revised. Pediatr Surg Int. 1989. 4:189–192.

6. Handa R, Kale R, Harjai M, Minocha A. Single scrotal incision orchiopexy for palpable undescended testis. Asian J Surg. 2006. 29:25–27.

7. Iyer KR, Kumar V, Huddart SN, Bianchi A. The scrotal approach. Pediatr Surg Int. 1995. 10:58–60.

8. Caruso AP, Walsh RA, Wolach JW, Koyle MA. Single scrotal incision orchiopexy for the palpable undescended testicle. J Urol. 2000. 164:156–158.

9. Dayanç M, Kibar Y, Tahmaz L, Yildirim I, Peker AF. Scrotal incision orchiopexy for undescended testis. Urology. 2004. 64:1216–1218.

10. Lee HR, Lee YS, Kim HS, Lee JY, Kim JC, Koh JS. A comparison between single scrotal incision orchiopexy and the inguinal approach in patients with palpable undescended testes distal to the external inguinal ring. Korean J Urol. 2009. 50:1133–1137.

11. Lais A, Ferro F. Trans-scrotal approach for surgical correction of cryptorchidism and congenital anomalies of the processus vaginalis. Eur Urol. 1996. 29:235–238.

12. Koyle MA, Walsh R, Caruso A, Wilson E. Scrotal (Bianchi) approach to patent processus vaginalis in children. Tech Urol. 1999. 5:95–99.

13. Maizels M, Gomez F, Firlit CF. Surgical correction of the failed orchiopexy. J Urol. 1983. 130:955–957.

14. Cartwright PC, Velagapudi S, Snyder HM 3rd, Keating MA. A surgical approach to reoperative orchiopexy. J Urol. 1993. 149:817–818.

15. Bassel YS, Scherz HC, Kirsch AJ. Scrotal incision orchiopexy for undescended testes with or without a patent processus vaginalis. J Urol. 2007. 177:1516–1518.