Dorsal shortening vs. ventral lengthening for congenital ventral curvature in patients with/without severe hypospadias A meta-analysis of comparative studies.
Journal
Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada
ISSN: 1911-6470
Titre abrégé: Can Urol Assoc J
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 101312644
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jul 2023
Jul 2023
Historique:
medline:
18
4
2023
pubmed:
18
4
2023
entrez:
17
4
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Herein, we compared surgical outcome of dorsal shortening (DS) vs. ventral lengthening (VL) for correcting congenital ventral curvatures. A systematic literature search was performed in September 2021 using the PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, CENTRAL, ProQuest, and Clinicaltrials.gov databases. Comparative studies were identified and evaluated according to Cochrane Collaboration recommendations. Assessed outcomes included success and complication rates, which were extrapolated for the respective odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Subgroup analyses were performed according to congenital curvature, with or without severe hypospadias or recurrent curvatures (PROSPERO: CRD42021276193). Based on pooled effect estimates from 12 studies with 430 (DS 253, VL 177) cases of ventral curvature repair, VL rendered a better success rate for curvature correction (OR 4.20, 95% CI 2.11, 8.33) than DS, with comparable composite surgical complication rates (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.27, 2.18). Subgroup analysis showed that the success rate remained significantly better for VL among patients with associated severe hypospadias (OR 3.59, 95% CI 1.25, 10.26) and recurrent penile curvatures (OR 5.70, 95% CI 1.69, 19.21) but not among those with congenital curvature without hypospadias or those with mild hypospadias (OR 2.99, 95% CI 0.32, 27.57). For congenital curvature associated with severe hypospadias and recurrent curvatures, VL renders a modestly better success rate; however, careful selection of patients is key for best outcome.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37068152
pii: cuaj.8223
doi: 10.5489/cuaj.8223
pmc: PMC10382216
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Pagination
E208-E214Références
J Urol. 2017 Sep;198(3):680-686
pubmed: 28400187
J Clin Epidemiol. 2019 Jul;111:105-114
pubmed: 29432858
Ann Intern Med. 2009 Aug 18;151(4):264-9, W64
pubmed: 19622511
J Pediatr Urol. 2021 Apr;17(2):166.e1-166.e7
pubmed: 33342679
Pediatr Surg Int. 2016 Oct;32(10):975-9
pubmed: 27488311
BMJ. 2017 Sep 21;358:j4008
pubmed: 28935701
J Urol. 2003 Oct;170(4 Pt 2):1580-3; discussion 1584
pubmed: 14501666
J Pediatr Urol. 2022 Aug;18(4):470-476
pubmed: 35534383
J Pediatr Surg. 2020 Dec;55(12):2710-2716
pubmed: 32854924
J Pediatr Urol. 2020 Oct;16(5):660.e1-660.e8
pubmed: 32800709
J Urol. 1982 Sep;128(3):559-61
pubmed: 7120563
Nat Rev Urol. 2013 Nov;10(11):657-66
pubmed: 23917119
J Urol. 2002 Oct;168(4 Pt 2):1727-8; discussion 1729
pubmed: 12352345
J Urol. 2008 Oct;180(4 Suppl):1743-7; discussion 1747-8
pubmed: 18721961
Nat Rev Urol. 2022 Mar;19(3):147-160
pubmed: 35039660
J Urol. 1998 Sep;160(3 Pt 2):1131-3; discussion 1137
pubmed: 9719292
Pediatr Surg Int. 2018 Feb;34(2):245-248
pubmed: 29058072
J Pediatr Urol. 2016 Feb;12(1):28.e1-7
pubmed: 26279102
Res Synth Methods. 2010 Apr;1(2):97-111
pubmed: 26061376
BMJ. 2016 Oct 12;355:i4919
pubmed: 27733354
Urology. 1999 Mar;53(3):608-12
pubmed: 10096392
Pediatr Surg Int. 2022 Mar;38(3):389-398
pubmed: 35048166
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019 Oct 3;10:ED000142
pubmed: 31643080
Curr Opin Urol. 2008 Jul;18(4):431-5
pubmed: 18520768
J Pediatr Urol. 2020 Apr;16(2):162.e1-162.e5
pubmed: 31974021
Stat Med. 2004 May 15;23(9):1351-75
pubmed: 15116347
J Pediatr Urol. 2019 Aug;15(4):344.e1-344.e6
pubmed: 31068257
J Urol. 2010 Oct;184(4):1469-74
pubmed: 20727541
ScientificWorldJournal. 2011 Jul 28;11:1470-8
pubmed: 21805016
J Pediatr Urol. 2021 Apr;17(2):226.e1-226.e6
pubmed: 33551367