Aspiration and sclerotherapy versus hydrocelectomy for treating hydroceles: a systematic review and meta-analyses

Background In this meta-analysis, we aimed to compare the hydrocelectomy versus aspiration and sclerotherapy for treating primary hydrocele. Methods We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi‐RCTs that compared aspiration and sclerotherapy with any type of sclerosants versus hydrocelectomy for primary hydrocele. Studies were identified via a systematic search of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Citation tracking of related articles was performed. Data extraction and quality assessment were performed independently by two authors. The primary and secondary outcome measures were compared and analyzed using the Review Manager 5.3.5 software. Results Five small RCTs were included in the present study. These 5 RCTs included 335 patients with 342 hydroceles, randomized to aspiration and sclerotherapy (185 patients; 189 hydroceles) and surgery (150 patients; 153 hydroceles). There was no significant difference in clinical cure between sclerotherapy and hydrocelectomy (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.10). Meta-analysis revealed a significant increase in recurrence in the sclerotherapy group compared with the surgical group (RR 9.43, 95% CI 1.82 to 48.77). There were no significant differences between the two groups in assessing fever, infection, and hematoma. Conclusion Aspiration and sclerotherapy is an efficient technique with a higher recurrent rate; therefore, we recommend aspiration and sclerotherapy for patients at high risk for surgery or avoiding surgery. In addition, included RCTs had low methodological quality, low sample size, and invalidated instruments for outcome assessment. Therefore, there is a great need for further methodologically rigorous RCTs with the registered protocol.