A meta-analysis: single or double dartos flap layer in tubularized incised plate urethroplasty to prevent urethrocutaneous fistula?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Backgrounds Urethrocutaneous fistula is one of the most common complications after urethroplasty. This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the superiority of double dartos flap to single dartos flap in preventing fistula during tubularized incised plate urethroplasty (TIPU), which is one of the most frequently used operations for hypospadias. Methods We extracted clinical trials under the following included criteria: (1) children with TIPU; (2) a comparison of single and double flap layer; and (3) record of complications with the following excluded criteria: (1) non-comparison and (2) lack of data. Finally, 13 studies from PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Embase have been investigated, with a total of 1,185 patients from 2005 to 2022. The quality assessment was conducted according to the Cochrane handbook and the Newcastle–Ottawa scale. A mixed-effect model was utilized to weigh the risk of fistula, phallic rotation, meatal stenosis, and wound dehiscence by the Review Manager V.5.4 software. Results The double dartos flap layer group excels in descending the risk of postoperative fistula [odds ratio (OR) = 9.56; 95% confidence interval (CI) (4.76, 19.22); P < 0.00001] and phallic rotation [OR = 31.26; 95% CI (9.60, 101.84); P < 0.00001], while there are no differences in the rate of meatal stenosis [OR = 1.49; 95% CI (0.73, 2.70); P = 0.31] and wound dehiscence [OR = 2.30; 95% CI (0.80, 6.63); P = 0.12]. Conclusions The routine utility of a double dartos flap layer is recommended as a potential treatment during the tubularized incised plate urethroplasty. Systematic Review Registration identifier PROSPERO CRD42022366294.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.023 | 0.059 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".