A systematic review and meta-analysis of surgical approaches in pelvic fracture-associated urethral injury in children: Primary endoscopic realignment versus delayed urethroplasty

Background: The management of pediatric patients afflicted with pelvic fracture urethral injury (PFUI) remains a topic of ongoing debate and controversy within the realm of urology. There is persistent discourse concerning the optimal timing for intervention, specifically between immediate primary realignment (PR) and delayed urethroplasty via suprapubic cystostomy (SCDU). This study was undertaken with the objective of conducting a systematic review of the existing body of evidence, with a focus on comparing the outcomes associated with PR and SCDU as interventions for PFUI among pediatric population. Methods: A systematic search across databases (PubMed, ScienceDirect, Web of Science and Cochrane Library) was conducted without time or language limitations. Both medical subject heading and free text terms as well as variations of keywords were searched. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), nonrandomized comparative studies and single-arm case series were included. Data were narratively synthesized considering methodological and clinical heterogeneity. The risk of bias of each included study was assessed. Results: From 1,776 identified articles, 5 studies encompassing 95 PR and 180 SCDU pediatric patients met our eligibility criteria. All studies were non-randomized comparative studies. In general, included studies were of moderately quality. Follow-up durations ranged from 3 to 204 months. Meta-analysis demonstrated that PR and SCDU had similar stricture rates (OR = 0.63, [95 %CI 0.29-1.36], p = 0.24), similar rates of urinary incontinence (OR = 0.65, [95 %CI 0.28-1.48], p = 0.3), and similar rates of ED (OR = 0.59, [95 %CI 0.23-1.53], p = 0.28). Conclusion: This study demonstrated that primary realignment procedure did not yield superior outcomes in terms of stricture formation, urinary incontinence, and rates of erectile dysfunction compared to SCDU in pediatric populations with PFUI. It is noteworthy that the predominant inclusion of non-randomized retrospective studies in this analysis introduces a potential for bias. Consequently, there is a pressing requirement for further high-quality research, notably prospective studies and randomized controlled trials, to bolster the robustness of the existing evidence base.