Journals / The European Research Journal / 2022 / Cilt: 8 - Sayı: 2

Common complications and their managements after penoscrotal hypospadias repairs: comparison of one-stage and staged repairs

Pages
256–265
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The overall complication rate was 34% at a mean follow-up of 41 months, and 18% in single-stage repair, and 44% in staged.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objectives: Surgical repair of hypospadias is challenging and the risk of complications is high, even for the most experienced specialists.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the data of patients underwent proximal hypospadias surgery between December 2011 and February 2021.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The overall complication rate was 34% at a mean follow-up of 41 months, and 18% in single-stage repair, and 44% in staged.
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:2011 Verileri
⚙️Variables:proximal hypospadias · postoperative complications · glans dehiscence

Abstract

Objectives: Surgical repair of hypospadias is challenging and the risk of complications is high, even for the most experienced specialists. In this study, we aim to present our experience with the management of the most common postoperative complications in patients who underwent proximal hypospadias repair. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the data of patients underwent proximal hypospadias surgery between December 2011 and February 2021. Patients who were repaired with single and staged methods were divided into two groups. Treatment methods of postoperative complications including wound dehiscence, fistula, stricture and diverticulum were examined and the results were noted and statistically compared. Results: Forty-four patients, with a mean age of 34 months at the first surgery were reviewed, 17 of whom underwent a single-stage repair and 27 of whom staged. Except for a patient who underwent Onlay island flap urethroplasty, long TIPU was used in all single-session repairs, and Byar's and Bracka methods in 19 and 8 patients of the staged group, respectively. The overall complication rate was 34% at a mean follow-up of 41 months, and 18% in single-stage repair, and 44% in staged. Glans dehiscence, urethrocutaneous fistula, urethral stricture, and diverticula were seen 2 (4%), 4 (9%), and 4 (9%), respectively. All glans dehiscence and two fistulae along with distal stricture treated with Mathieu urethroplasty. Two proximal short strictures were relieved by single session dilation. Diverticula were repaired by urethroplasty. The complications were successfully treated, and no recurrence developed. Conclusions: The risk of complications is higher due to proximal hypospadias, long urethroplasty and defective penile tissue. Hypoplasic glandular urethra, distal stricture and a neourethra devoid of spongiosum appear to be related for complications. Despite the more encountered, postoperative complications of proximal hypospadias repairs have been shown to be successfully treated with the appropriate techniques.

🔖

Cite This Article

OZCAKİR, E., OKAY, S. T., KAYA, M. (2022). Common complications and their managements after penoscrotal hypospadias repairs: comparison of one-stage and staged repairs. The European Research Journal, Cilt: 8 - Sayı: 2, 256–265. https://ajindex.com/articles/403186

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (17)

  1. Cilento BG Jr, Atala A. Proximal hypospadias. Urol Clin North Am 2002;29:311-28
  2. Snodgrass W, Prieto J. Straightening ventral curvature while preserving the urethral plate in proximal hypospadias repair. J Urol 2009;182:1720-5
  3. Duckett JW. Transverse preputial island fap technique for repair of severe hypospadias. Urol Clin N Am 1980;7:423-30
  4. Byars, L.T. Functional restoration of hypospa-dias deformities. Surg Gynaecol Obstet. 1951;92:149-54
  5. Bracka A. A versatile two-stage hypospadias repair. Br J Plastic Surg. 1995;345-52
  6. Stanasel I, Le HK, Bilgutay A, Roth DR, Gonzales ET Jr, Janzen N, et al. Complications following staged hypospadias repair using transposed preputial skin flaps. J Urol 2015;194:512-6
  7. McNamara ER, Schaeffer AJ, Logvinenko T, Seager C, Rosoklija I, Nelson CP, et al. Management of proximal hypospadias with 2-stage repair: 20-year experience. J Urol 2015;194:1080-5
  8. Pippi Salle JL, Sayed S, Salle A, Bagli D, Farhat W, Koyle M, et al. Proximal hypospadias: A persistent challenge. Single institution outcome analysis of three surgical techniques over a 10-year period. J Pediatr Urol 2016;12:28.e1-7
  9. Long CJ, Chu DI, Tenney RW, Morris AR, Weiss DA, Shukla AR, et al. Intermediate-term followup of proximal hypospadias repair reveals high complication rate. J Urol 2017;197:852-8
  10. Retik AB, Atala A. Complications of hypospadias repair. Urol Clin North Am 2002;29:329-39
  11. Merriman LS, Arlen AM, Broecker BH, Smith EA, Kirsch AJ, Elmore JM. The GMS hypospadias score: assessment of inter-observer reliability and correlation with post-operative complications. J Pediatr Urol 2013;9:707-12. 12. van der Horst HJ, de Wall LL. Hypospadias, all there is to know. Eur J Pediatr 2017;176:435-41
  12. Snyder CL, Evangelidis A, Hansen G, St Peter SD, Ostlie DJ, Gatti JM, et al. Management of complications after hypospadias repair. Urology 2005;65:782-5
  13. Al-Juraibah F, Lucas-Herald A, Nixon R, Toka C, Wang C, Flett M, et al. Association between extra-genital congenital anomalies and hypospadias outcome. Sex Dev 2019;13:67-73
  14. Snodgrass W, Cost N, Nakonezny PA, Bush N. Analysis of risk factors for glans dehiscence after tubularized incised plate hypospadias repair. J Urol 2011;185:1845-9
  15. White CM, Hanna MK. Salvaging the dehisced glans penis. J Pediatr Urol 2018;14:422.e1-5
  16. Kolon TF, Gonzales ET Jr. The dorsal inlay graft for hypospadias repair. J Urol 2000;163:1941-3
  17. Snodgrass WT, Bush NC. Surgical complic