From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This article contains text taken from public domain documents at and Please update as needed.

Q: Retractile Testis[edit]

It seems to me that there are two contradicting mentionings of "retractile testis" in this article.

In the introduction, it says that a retractile testis is one which moves back upwards into the inguinal canal. Whereas in the Diagnosis section, it says that cryptorchidism needs to be distinguished from when the testis is retracted into the upper part of the scrotum by the cremaster, which is referred to as rectractile testis as well.


"Orchidopexy is an operation to move undescended testicles from the abdomen to the scrotum."

That's wrong! With an inguinal testis this kind of operation mya work, but for the abdominal form of "maldescensus testis" you need to perform a semicastration. -- 18:56, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Intentional cryptorchidism[edit]

As the testes need to be at a lower temperature than the body to produce sperm, an experimental male contraceptive method is to intentionally hold them inside the body. While apparently effective, little research has been done and it is not known if there are any long-term risks or side effects. See heat-based contraception.

I removed the above text as it is simply inaccurate. No one is seriously considering doing this with human beings; put it back it if you can cite a real trial, rather than wild-ass speculation. alteripse 11:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I looked at every link. All deal with ways to increase temperature. I really liked the do-yourself suspensory briefs devised by the toxicologist-- guaranteed to appeal to engineers. However, this list is a bit of flimflam, as not a single link describes surgical cryptorchidism in a human. There was one animal study that reported promising results. While the suspensory and heat methods should be mentioned in a male contraception article, it doesn't belong in this article until someone actually does it in a person. Thanks for understanding. alteripse 22:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Um, what? Nowhere did anyone ever say it is surgical, and it has been done on several people, as shown in the links. Try here: [1] What do you dislike about it being included in the article? It's just a link to the main heat-based contraception article. — Omegatron 00:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
I assumed the only reasonable definition of artificial cryptorchidism was "inside", not "pushed up to the top of the scrotum". Your latest link does show the phrase "artificial cryptorchidism" used for the suspensory method. I certainly consider it a misnomer, but apparently the editor of the medical journal bought it, so if you want to put it in I won't object. Just make it clear that the phrase does not mean inside the inguinal canal or abdomen, just pushed up to the top of the scrotum by special underwear. alteripse 00:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm no anatomist, and it sounds uncomfortable as hell, but they do say "suspended in the abdomen" and "partially inside the inguinal canals". — Omegatron 00:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Unless you have an inguinal hernia, you can't push them up into the inguinal canal, just to the top of the scrotum. When that naturally occurs, we call them retractile, not cryptorchid. That's why it didn't even occur to me that cryptorchidism applied to those links. alteripse 01:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, I didn't even know what "cryptorchidism" was until I came here about this. What would be a more accurate medical term? — Omegatron 01:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

If you have ever had a doctor check you for a hernia, he pushes his finger into the top of your scrotum upwards toward the inguinal canal. Tissue is deformable enough that the testes can be pushed up into the same area. They are "in the abdomen" in the same sense that your finger tip is "in the abdomen" if you push it into your belly button an inch-- not topologically or anatomically, but at the close to the same temperature. The temperature is the key part here and it is essentially the only aspect of cryptorchidism that is reproduced by those suspensory briefs. As soon as they take the briefs off, the testes would slide right back down into the lower part of the scrotum, wiping the sweat off their little brows. I appreciate your showing me the links, because I had never heard of this as a actual mode of contraception. Give me a few minutes and then take a look at what I put in the article. I honestly don't think much more belongs here, though it certainly deserves a full description and links in the male contraception article. alteripse 01:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, thanks for re-adding it. I like your version better. — Omegatron 07:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Photo of cryptorchidism in human males[edit]

I re-added the photo which seems to be used in at least two other Wikipedias in the counterparts of this very article. I tried to find signs of the alleged digital manipulation of the image, but honestly couldn't see anything that would suggest the allegation to be true. We have to be able to trust material we have readily available. The photo has been available on Wikipedia for more than a year, so it seems no one else has seen any problem with it than the person who appears to have removed the photo from this article multiple times. However, I would want to hear the opinions people have. Is the photo indeed fake? If it is, it has to be removed not only from this article but from all of Wikipedia. If it isn't, could it be considered inappropriate regardless? In that case, what would you suggest to take its place to demonstrate cryptorchidism in human males?

My personal opinion on the latter is that it isn't inappropriate. Granted, this is an article about a medical condition and photos of certain medical conditions which involve large amounts of tissue damage could be too much for the layperson, but this doesn't belong to that category. The male reproductive system seen in the photos looks perfectly healthy to me despite the cryptorchidism. (talk) 01:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Uhhh, photo manipulation? Are you kidding me? The picture is just a voyeur with his testicles tucked between his legs. Why is that even on this page? This image needs to be removed immediately.

<---I agree with this last user. I have no idea what this photo of a healthy testicle being hidden has to do with cryptorchidism. I have seen many penis images in professonial and educational journals and books, but this is silliness. I have dealt with inadvertant erections as a professional, and I never found any of those offensive. As a woman, I have grown weary of men who look for opportunities to force their erections on unwilling participants. So, why pointlessly show an erection-focused photo that is totally irrelevant to cryptorchidism. This site certainly warrents an appropriate genital photo, but how about a real photo of cryptorchidism.

This media file has been nominated for deletion since 12 November 2015. To discuss it, please visit the nomination page. Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages as indicated in the toolbar before you submit an edit, using four tildes ~~~~.--Stephen Judge (talk) 20:47, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

References missing[edit]

Reference for "The most common type of testicular cancer occurring in undescended testes is seminoma" line required. Pradyumna k m (talk) 14:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Most cases get better on their own, without any treatment.[edit]

The A.D.A.M. Medical Encyclopedia says "Usually the testicle will descend into the scrotum without any intervention during the first year of life." Yet the article currently reads "[U]ndescended testes are usually brought into the scrotum in infancy by a surgical procedure called an orchiopexy." and "[P]rimary management of cryptorchidism is surgery, called orchiopexy." w/o references. So I shall change it, replacing "usually"... The article suffers from inconsistency that is perhaps best remedied by stating that views on best practices among experts are evolving , and then describing the situation in detail. --W☯W t/c 21:00, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Psychological consequences[edit]

In the section [consequences], it is said things such as "sexual normality" or "without special sexual or gender problems" which are quite offensive to gay and trans people, so I'd suggest they be replaced by "cis-heterosexuality" or something like that. Indeed, being gay or trans isn't a sexual or gender "problem". Mondrak (talk) 22:38, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Now, that paragraph says "gender-disordered, effeminate, or prehomosexual", which is equally offensive. And "prehomosexual" is ridiculous. You're either homosexual or you're not, there is no "pre-" because sexuality is not a choice. And being gay or trans is not "disordered" or wrong or unnatural or pathological in any way. Please replace this offensive and outdated language with something modern, accurate, and respectful. 2601:441:467F:9E00:2CDE:C291:1C36:6E2F (talk) 00:53, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Given that the entire "Psychological Consequences" section is based on a single 1974 paper, I suspect that the paper was concerned exclusively with LGBTQ identities as "psychological problems" and has no relevance whatsoever to actual psychiatric distress of any kind. I move that the whole section be deleted, unless someone has access to that paper and can find something in it that's actually worth saying. 2601:441:467F:9E00:2CDE:C291:1C36:6E2F (talk) 00:56, 16 November 2019 (UTC)