Laparoscopic versus open orchiopexy for palpable undescended testes: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Background/purpose: Laparoscopic orchiopexy (LO) was recently described as superior to open orchiopexy (OO) for palpable undescended testes (UDT). We aimed to investigate the outcomes of LO of palpable UDT in relation to high retroperitoneal dissection, Prentiss maneuver and intrascrotal testis fixation; also, to identify evidence for the safety, efficacy and cost of LO compared with OO in palpable UDT.Methods: Systematic search was performed for all studies on LO for palpable UDT, and for all comparative studies between LO and OO in palpable UDT. Fisher's test was used to assess associations between success/complications rates and different LO approaches and meta-analysis to compare LO and OO.Results: In LO, success rates were not affected by regular high dissection ( p = 1.0), Prentiss maneuver ( p = 1.0) or intrascrotal fixation ( p = 1.0); in fact, higher complications rates were noticed with regular high dissection ( p = 0.002) and Prentiss maneuver ( p = 0.01). Meta-analysis showed no significant differences between LO and OO in success ( p = 0.17) and complications ( p = 0.14) rates, while LO cost was higher in all comparative studies.Conclusions: Evidence shows higher benefit-cost ratio for OO and, therefore, the latter should remain the procedure of choice. LO can be alternatively used, as it shows comparable safety/efficacy, but it should not include high dissection, Prentiss maneuver and testis fixation, when unnecessary. Type of study: Systematic review and meta-analysisLevel of evidence: III (c) 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.