Dergiler / Turkish Journal of Urology / 2022 / Cilt: 48 - Sayı: 1

Mathieu vs urethral plate tubularization in circumcised Megameatus intact prepuce repair: A prospective randomized comparative study

Sayfa
74–81
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Conclusion: Mathieu and tubularized incised plate urethroplasty both are good options for circumcised MIP repair.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Objective: The objective of this study is to evaluate and compare urethral plate tubularization vs Mathieu in circumcised Megameatus intact prepuce (MIP) repair.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Many techniques were described for MIP, which account for 5% of hypospadias cases and usually diagnosed at time of, or even after circumcision.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Conclusion: Mathieu and tubularized incised plate urethroplasty both are good options for circumcised MIP repair.
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:2017 Verileri
⚙️Değişkenler:Alan Parametreleri

Özet

Objective: The objective of this study is to evaluate and compare urethral plate tubularization vs Mathieu in circumcised Megameatus intact prepuce (MIP) repair. Many techniques were described for MIP, which account for 5% of hypospadias cases and usually diagnosed at time of, or even after circumcision. Material and methods: Forty-six circumcised MIP cases were prospectively enrolled in this prospective study, which was carried out in April 2017 and March 2020. Patients were randomly allocated into two groups. Group one operated by simple urethral plate tubularization and group two by the Mathieu technique. Hypospadias objective scoring evaluation (HOSE) scores, success rate, operative time, and the need for relaxing incision or scrotal flaps for skin closure were compared. Results: Forty-three circumcised cases (22 in group one and 21 in group two) completed at least 6months of follow-up. Ages ranged from 12 to 39months (mean 18.06 6 6.35) in group one and from 10 to 32months (mean 19.5 6 7.14) in group two. There was no significant difference between cases with accepted outcome based on HOSE scores (14) of the two groups (P value ¼ .942). Three fistulae and one meatal stenosis were the complications in group one (18.2%). In group two, two patients complicated with fistula (9.5%) (P value ¼ .674). Significant differences were present only in the operative time (P ¼ .001) and in the need of relaxing incision or scrotal skin flaps (P ¼ .012) both were more in group two. Conclusion: Mathieu and tubularized incised plate urethroplasty both are good options for circumcised MIP repair.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

ABDALLA, M., SAKR, A., ELAGALALY, H., ELSAYED, E., OMRAN, M. (2022). Mathieu vs urethral plate tubularization in circumcised Megameatus intact prepuce repair: A prospective randomized comparative study. Turkish Journal of Urology, Cilt: 48 - Sayı: 1, 74–81. https://ajindex.com/articles/413240

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (14)

  1. Cendron M. The Megameatus, intact prepuce variant of hypospadias: Use of the inframeatal vascularized flap for surgical correction. Front Pediatr. 2018
  2. [CrossRef] 2. Bar-Yosef Y, Binyamini J, Mullerad M, et al. Megameatus intact prepuce hypospadias variant: Application of tubularized incised plate urethroplasty. Urology. 2005
  3. [Cross- Ref] 3. Faasse MA, Dray EV, Cheng EY. Repair of mega-meatus: A modified approach. J Pediatr Urol. 2015
  4. [CrossRef] 4. Snodgrass WT, Khavari R. Prior circumcision does not complicate repair of hypospadias with an intact prepuce. J Urol. 2006
  5. [CrossRef] 5. Nonomura K, Kakizaki H, Shimoda N, et al. Surgical repair of anterior hypospadias with fish-mouth meatus and intact prepuce based on anatomical characteristics. Eur Urol. 1998
  6. 34(4):368- 371. [9748688] 6. Docimo SG. Subcutaneous frenulum flap (SCUFF) for iatrogenic or primary Megameatus and reoperative hypospadias repair. Urology. 2001
  7. 58(2):271-273. [CrossRef] 7. Hill GA, Wacksman J, Lewis AG, et al. The modified pyramid hypospadias procedure: Repair of mega-meatus and deep glanular groove variants. J Urol. 1993
  8. [CrossRef] 8. Azmy AF, Hadidi AT. Megameatus Intact Prepuce Variant. Hypospadias Surgery: An Illustrated Guide. New York: Springer, 2004: 135-138. 9. Holland AJ, Smith GH, Ross FI, et al. HOSE: An objective scoring system for evaluating the results of hypospadias surgery. BJU Int. 2001
  9. 88(3):255-258. [CrossRef] 10. Weber DM, Landolt MA, Gobet R, et al. The penile perception score: An instrument enabling evaluation by surgeons and patient self-assessment after hypospadias repair. J Urol. 2013
  10. 189(1):189-193. [CrossRef] 11. Juskiewenski S, Vaysse P, Guitard J, et al. Traitement des hypospadias ante´rieurs. Place de la balanoplastie [Treatment of anterior hypospadias. Place of balanoplasty]. Chir Pediatr. 1983
  11. 24(1):75-79. 12. Duckett JW, Keating MA. Technical challenge of the Megameatus intact prepuce hypospadias variant: The pyramid procedure. J Urol. 1989
  12. [CrossRef] 13. Pieretti RV, Pieretti A, Pieretti-Vanmarcke R. Circumcised hypospadias. Pediatr Surg Int. 2009
  13. 25(1):53-55. [CrossRef] 14. Bagnara V, Giammusso B, Castagnetti M, et al. Distal hypospadias repair using the needle point bipolar cutting– coagulation forceps. J Pediatr Urol. 2020
  14. e1-69.e5. [CrossRef] 15. Wang F, Xu Y, Zhong H. Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing the perimeatal-based flap and tubularized in