4.6 Article

Age at Cryptorchidism Diagnosis and Orchiopexy in Denmark: A Population Based Study of 508,964 Boys Born From 1995 to 2009

Journal

JOURNAL OF UROLOGY
Volume 186, Issue 4, Pages 1595-1600

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2011.03.070

Keywords

testis; cryptorchidism; diagnosis; orchiopexy; age groups

Funding

  1. Faculty of Health Sciences, Aarhus University

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: Early treatment for cryptorchidism may be necessary to preserve fertility. International guidelines now recommend that congenital cryptorchidism be treated with orchiopexy before age 1 year. Acquired cryptorchidism should be treated at presentation. To our knowledge the rate of adherence to these guidelines in recent years is unknown. Thus, we present data on age at cryptorchidism diagnosis and orchiopexy in recent Danish birth cohorts. Materials and Methods: A population of 508,964 Danish boys born alive from January 1, 1995 to December 31, 2009 was identified using the Danish Civil Registration System. Five birth cohorts were defined, including 1995 to 1997, 1998 to 2000, 2001 to 2003, 2004 to 2006 and 2007 to 2009. The boys were followed in the Danish National Patient Registry for a diagnosis of cryptorchidism and for an orchiopexy procedure. Data were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier estimator and Cox regression models. Results: During followup 10,094 boys were diagnosed with cryptorchidism, of whom 5,473 underwent orchiopexy. Mean age at diagnosis in boys followed at least 6 years was 3.3 years (95% CI 3.3-3.4) in the 1995 to 1997 cohort, 3.1 (95% CI 3.1-3.2) in the 1998 to 2000 cohort and 2.9 (95% CI 2.8 -2.9) in the 2001 to 2003 cohort while mean age at orchiopexy was 3.8 (3.7-3.9), 3.6 (3.5-3.7) and 3.3 years (3.2-3.4), respectively. Conclusions: In the more recent birth cohorts of 1995 to 2009 we observed a shift toward younger age at cryptorchidism diagnosis and orchiopexy.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available