Modified Scrotal (Bianchi) Mid Raphe Single Incision Orchiopexy for Low Palpable Undescended Testis: Early Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: We compared the results of low transscrotal mid raphe orchiopexy, high scrotal incision (Bianchi) and conventional inguinal approach in patients with palpable undescended testes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Orchiopexies performed between January 2003 and September 2009 with a minimum 3-month followup were included. Low scrotal incision (group 1) and high scrotal incision (group 2) were compared to the traditional inguinal 2-incision technique (group 3). We retrospectively reviewed operative time, success as defined by mid or lower scrotal position of the testis, and complications at 12 weeks and 1 year postoperatively. RESULTS: A total of 286 orchiopexies were performed in 214 patients with palpable undescended testes. Group 1 included 81 patients with 125 undescended testes. Group 2 consisted of 44 patients with 60 undescended testes. Group 3 included 89 patients with 101 undescended testes. Postoperatively the testes were located in a good position within the scrotum in 99% of patients in group 1, 98% in group 2 and 100% in group 3. Mean±SD operative time for unilateral undescended testes was significantly shorter for low transscrotal compared to inguinal orchiopexy (28±10 vs 37±12 minutes, p<0.0001) but equivalent to a high scrotal incision (27±10 minutes, p=0.59). For all 160 children followed for 1 year no long-term atrophy or secondary reascent was observed. CONCLUSIONS: Low transscrotal mid raphe orchiopexy appears to be an excellent alternative to high scrotal incision or standard inguinal orchiopexy for low palpable undescended testes, especially bilateral cases.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".