TABLE 7.

Strength of Evidence of Surgical Treatments for Cryptorchidism

No. of Studies; Total Subjects; Treated Testicles	Risk of Bias	Consistency	Directness	Precision	Strength of Evidence and Magnitude of Effecta
Testicular descent
1-stage FS 7; 644; 155	Retrospective cohorts/ High	Consistent	Direct	Imprecise	Moderate
					78.7% (range: 33%–94.3%)
2-stage FS 9; 784; 242	Retrospective cohorts/ High	Consistent	Direct	Imprecise	Moderate
					86.0% (range: 67%–98%)
Primary orchiopexy 7; 695; 467	Retrospective cohorts/ High	Consistent	Direct	Precise	High
					96.4% (range: 89.1%–100%)
Open versus laparoscopic repair 1; 75; 75	RCT High	Unknown	Direct	Unknown	Low RCT: No difference in postoperative testicular position
Open versus laparoscopic repair 2; 96; 110	Cohorts/High	Consistent	Direct	Imprecise	Cohorts: No difference in postoperative testicular position
Atrophy
1-stage FS 3; 320; 32	Retrospective cohorts/ High	Consistent	Direct	Imprecise	Low
					28.1% (range: 22%–67%)
2-stage FS 5; 470; 158	Retrospective cohorts/ High	Consistent	Direct	Precise	Low
					8.2% (range: 0%–12%)
Primary orchiopexy 5; 470; 273	Retrospective cohorts/ High	Consistent	Direct	Precise	Moderate
					1.83% (range: 0%–4%)
Open versus laparoscopic repairb 1; 75; 75	RCT High	Unknown	Direct	Unknown	Low Laparoscopy: 10%
					Open: 19%

^aPooled proportion (range).

^bAtrophy rates for second-stage orchiopexy; no atrophy reported with primary orchiopexy.