Modified versus traditional Devine procedure for pediatric concealed penis: a systematic review and meta-analysis<sup>#</sup>
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Concealed penis (CP) is a common congenital condition in pediatric urology, and surgical correction remains the mainstay of treatment. The modified Devine procedure (MDP) has been increasingly used, but its comparative safety and effectiveness relative to the traditional Devine procedure (TDP) remain unclear. This study aimed to compare the safety and effectiveness of the MDP with the TDP for the treatment of pediatric CP. METHODS: This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA 2020 and AMSTAR guidelines. Prospective, retrospective, and randomized controlled studies comparing MDP and TDP for pediatric CP were included. Five databases (China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Medline, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science) were searched from their inception to May 2025. Data extraction was performed independently by two authors, and discrepancies were resolved by a third reviewer. Statistical analyses were performed using Stata 16.0 software. Weighted mean difference (WMD) and odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. Study quality and risk of bias were assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and ROBINS-I tool. RESULTS: Twenty-two studies describing 1512 patients were included. Compared to the TDP, the MDP had an advantage in length of stay (weighted mean difference [WMD] = -1.19, 95% CI [-1.03, -0.15], p < 0.01), estimated blood loss (WMD = -4.32, 95% CI [-7.64, -1.01], p < 0.05), prepuce oedema time (WMD = -1.37, 95% CI [-2.49, -0.25], p < 0.05), postoperative penis length (WMD = 0.52, 95% CI [0.25, 0.80], p < 0.01), postoperative penis extension length (WMD = 0.90, 95% CI [0.58, 1.22], p < 0.01), complications (odds ratio [OR] = 0.15, 95% CI [0.10, 0.24), p < 0.01), prepuce oedema (OR = 0.21, 95% CI [0.13, 0.34], p < 0.01), penile retraction (OR = 0.21, 95% CI [0.06, 0.79], p < 0.05), postoperative pain (OR = 0.18, 95% CI [0.05, 0.64], p < 0.01), satisfaction (OR = 8.35, 95% CI [2.42, 28.78], p < 0.01), and effectiveness (OR = 4.64, 95% CI [2.61, 8.26], p < 0.01). The two surgical groups were comparable in terms of operative time. Several included studies had small sample sizes, and EMBASE was initially not searched due to institutional access restrictions, which may have led to the omission of relevant studies. CONCLUSION: Modified Devine procedure is superior to the traditional Devine procedure in the treatment of pediatric concealed penis. However, these results should be interpreted as preliminary trends, and further randomized controlled trials with larger sample sizes are needed to validate and strengthen these observations.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».