{"title":"Effectiveness of manual detorsion in the treatment of testicular torsion: systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Sinan Kılıç","doi":"10.32604/cju.2025.072049","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Testicular torsion is the most common surgical cause of an acute scrotum. Manuel detorsion renewed attention as a practical initial treatment, particularly in the COVID-19 pandemic. This study aims to systematically review and meta-analyze the current literature to determine whether manual detorsion offers a viable alternative to immediate surgery in improving testicular salvage rates.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines and registered with PROSPERO (CRD420251039489). Studies including ≥30 male patients comparing manual detorsion and surgical exploration were included. Searches were performed in PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, TR Index, and Web of Science. Risk of bias was assessed using a predefined scoring system based on methodology, sample size, and follow-up objectivity. Data were synthesized using RevMan 5.4 to calculate pooled risk ratios.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eight retrospective studies involving a total of 670 patients were included. Patients were divided into a manual detorsion group (G1, n = 394) and a surgical exploration group (G2, n = 316). Success rates of manual detorsion ranged from 15% to 76%, while orchiectomy rates were lower in G1 (0% to 10.3%) compared to G2 (0% to 43.8%). The pooled success rate of manual detorsion was 75.7%. Although orchiectomy rates appeared numerically lower in the manual detorsion group (3.8% vs. 29.2%), the pooled analysis did not demonstrate a statistically significant overall difference between the two groups (risk ratio [RR] = 1.23; 95% CI: 0.82-1.84; p = 0.31).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Manual detorsion appears time-saving and effective maneuver. To our knowledge, this is the first meta-analysis focused exclusively on manual detorsion, and it supports its consideration as an initial management strategy in selected clinical scenarios.</p>","PeriodicalId":520500,"journal":{"name":"The Canadian journal of urology","volume":"33 3","pages":"505-514"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-06-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Canadian journal of urology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.32604/cju.2025.072049","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objectives: Testicular torsion is the most common surgical cause of an acute scrotum. Manuel detorsion renewed attention as a practical initial treatment, particularly in the COVID-19 pandemic. This study aims to systematically review and meta-analyze the current literature to determine whether manual detorsion offers a viable alternative to immediate surgery in improving testicular salvage rates.
Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines and registered with PROSPERO (CRD420251039489). Studies including ≥30 male patients comparing manual detorsion and surgical exploration were included. Searches were performed in PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, TR Index, and Web of Science. Risk of bias was assessed using a predefined scoring system based on methodology, sample size, and follow-up objectivity. Data were synthesized using RevMan 5.4 to calculate pooled risk ratios.
Results: Eight retrospective studies involving a total of 670 patients were included. Patients were divided into a manual detorsion group (G1, n = 394) and a surgical exploration group (G2, n = 316). Success rates of manual detorsion ranged from 15% to 76%, while orchiectomy rates were lower in G1 (0% to 10.3%) compared to G2 (0% to 43.8%). The pooled success rate of manual detorsion was 75.7%. Although orchiectomy rates appeared numerically lower in the manual detorsion group (3.8% vs. 29.2%), the pooled analysis did not demonstrate a statistically significant overall difference between the two groups (risk ratio [RR] = 1.23; 95% CI: 0.82-1.84; p = 0.31).
Conclusion: Manual detorsion appears time-saving and effective maneuver. To our knowledge, this is the first meta-analysis focused exclusively on manual detorsion, and it supports its consideration as an initial management strategy in selected clinical scenarios.
目的:睾丸扭转是急性阴囊最常见的手术原因。曼努埃尔扭曲作为一种实用的初始治疗方法再次受到关注,特别是在COVID-19大流行期间。本研究旨在系统回顾和荟萃分析目前的文献,以确定是否手动扭转提供了一个可行的替代立即手术,以提高睾丸保留率。方法:根据PRISMA指南进行系统评价和荟萃分析,并在PROSPERO注册(CRD420251039489)。研究纳入了≥30例男性患者,比较手工扭转和手术探查。在PubMed/MEDLINE、Scopus、TR Index和Web of Science中进行检索。使用基于方法学、样本量和随访客观性的预定义评分系统评估偏倚风险。采用RevMan 5.4进行数据综合,计算汇总风险比。结果:8项回顾性研究共纳入670例患者。患者分为手扳组(G1, n = 394)和手术探查组(G2, n = 316)。手工扭转的成功率从15%到76%不等,而G1的睾丸切除术率(0%到10.3%)低于G2(0%到43.8%)。手动扭转术总成功率为75.7%。虽然手工扭转组的睾丸切除术率在数字上较低(3.8% vs. 29.2%),但合并分析并未显示两组之间的总体差异有统计学意义(风险比[RR] = 1.23; 95% CI: 0.82-1.84; p = 0.31)。结论:手动扭转是一种省时有效的操作方法。据我们所知,这是第一个专门针对手部屈曲的荟萃分析,它支持将其作为选定临床方案的初始管理策略。