Utilization of scrotal orchidopexy for palpable undescended testes among surgeons

Introduction: Scrotal orchidopexy for palpable undescended testicle (UDT) has received attention in the last decade due to its lower morbidity. This study was conducted to determine the frequency and factors related to the use of the scrotal approach in the surgical treatment of palpable UDT among surgeons. Methods: An observational cross-sectional study was carried out using an online survey, which was sent to different pediatric urologists, pediatric surgeons, and urologists groups. The survey consisted of questions on demographics as well as surgeons opinions and experience toward scrotal orchidopexy. Results: Of 163 respondents, 57 (35.0%) were pediatric surgeons, 98 (60.1%) were pediatric urologists, and 8 (4.9%) were urologists. There were 86 respondents (52.8%) who used the scrotal orchidopexy approach for UDT at any time in their practice. Pediatric urologists tended to use the scrotal orchidopexy approach for UDT more significantly than others (P < 0.001). There were significantly more scrotal orchidopexies for UDT performed by the pediatric urologists throughout their practice and per year compared to others, respectively (P < 0.001). Fifty-two respondents (31.9%) claimed that scrotal orchidopexy is not a good option for their patients, while seven respondents (4.3%) claimed that the procedure was hard to perform. Discussion: Based on the results of this study, we believe that there is a discrepancy in the reported advantages and success rate of scrotal orchidopexy in the published literature and the utilization of such an approach among surgeons managing palpable UDT in children. Conclusion: Scrotal orchidopexy is an underutilized approach in the management of palpable UDT in children. Only 52.8% of our respondents used it for UDT. One of the main reasons why scrotal orchidopexy is underutilized is due to the surgeons' perception that scrotal orchidopexy is not the procedure of choice for their patients and their unfamiliarity with the procedure.

[1]  Jie Zhang,et al.  Single scrotal incision orchiopexy versus the inguinal approach in children with palpable undescended testis: a systematic review and meta-analysis , 2016, Pediatric Surgery International.

[2]  A. Jenke,et al.  Operative management of cryptorchidism: guidelines and reality - a 10-year observational analysis of 3587 cases , 2015, BMC Pediatrics.

[3]  Y. Kibar,et al.  Comparison of the inguinal and scrotal approaches for the treatment of communicating hydrocele in children , 2014, The Kaohsiung journal of medical sciences.

[4]  A. Abacı,et al.  Epidemiology, Classification and Management of Undescended Testes: Does Medication Have Value in its Treatment? , 2013, Journal of clinical research in pediatric endocrinology.

[5]  A. Macedo,et al.  Single scrotal incision orchiopexy - a systematic review. , 2013, International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of Urology.

[6]  Kwangsung Park,et al.  Single Scrotal Incision Orchiopexy for Children with Palpable Low-Lying Undescended Testis: Early Outcome of a Prospective Randomized Controlled Study , 2011, Korean journal of urology.

[7]  A. Kirsch,et al.  Evolution of single practice trends in the surgical approach to the undescended testicle. , 2011, The Journal of urology.

[8]  Philip E V van Kerrebroeck,et al.  Scrotal approach to both palpable and impalpable undescended testes: should it become our first choice? , 2010, Urology.

[9]  John C. Thomas,et al.  Orchiopexy for intra-abdominal testes: factors predicting success. , 2009, The Journal of urology.

[10]  Y. Kibar,et al.  Long-term outcome of scrotal incision orchiopexy for undescended testis. , 2007, Urology.

[11]  Y. Kibar,et al.  Scrotal incision orchiopexy for undescended testis. , 2004, Urology.

[12]  J. Molenaar.  Surgical treatment of undescended testes , 1982, European Journal of Pediatrics.