Distal hypospadias repair using the needle point bipolar cutting-coagulation forceps

Are there anatomical limiting factors to foreskin reconstruction at the time of single-stage hypospadias repair?

INTRODUCTION

Foreskin reconstruction (FR) at the time of primary hypospadias repair is a truly anatomically complete reconstruction of the hypospadic penis. We prospectively collected penile and preputial measurement of children undergoing single-stage hypospadias repair and FR with the aim to identify possible relations between penile and preputial anatomy and the likelihood to develop complications.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We prospectively studied children who underwent single stage hypospadias repair associated with FR from 2016 to 2019. We recorded intra-operative foreskin and penile measurements and post-operative outcomes. Logistic Regression analysis was performed to explore independent factors affecting urethroplasty and skin complications. Chi square test was used to compare outcomes in different groups based on ventral foreskin defect (VFD) width, Glans size, age at surgery and meatal location.

RESULTS

From a total of 181 consecutive patients, 86 boys who underwent a single stage hypospadias repair combined with FR were included in the study. Patients were excluded because they were either lost at follow up (n = 10), required a 2-stage repair (n = 2), were circumcised at birth (n = 3) or parents requested a circumcision (n = 78); in 2 patients, a decision to perform circumcision was made intraoperatively due to aesthetic reasons (monk-hood deformity of the prepuce). Median age at surgery was 17 months. Mean glans width was 14.4 mm. Mean unstretched and stretched foreskin circumference were 29.5 mm and 40.9 mm, respectively. Mean VFD (the distance between the proximal insertion of the foreskin hood on either side of the midline at the level of the coronal sulcus) was 7.2 mm (Fig. 1). At median follow-up of 8 months (6-23), 9 complications were recorded (10.4%): foreskin dehiscence occurred in 1% (1/86), a foreskin fistula was noted in 4.6% (4/86), tight, non-retractile, foreskin in 1% (1/86); urethrocutaneous fistula in 2.3% (2/86) and complete dehiscence of the glans and foreskin in 1 (1.2%). Multiple logistic regression analysis demonstrated that none of the measurements obtained was an independent risk factor for developing urethroplasty or skin complications. There was no significant difference in complications between wide VFD (>7 mm) vs. narrow VFD (≤7 mm), large glans (>14 mm) vs. small glans (≤14 mm), age at surgery ≤24 months vs. > 24 month and meatal location distal (glanular, coronal, subcoronal and distal penile) vs. proximal (midpenile, proximal penile and penoscrotal).

CONCLUSION

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study reporting a prospective and objective assessment of the foreskin in the context of single stage hypospadias repair. Individual anatomical differences in preputial and penile anatomy do not seem to affect the likelihood of skin and urethroplasty complications. FR can, therefore, be offered to all boys undergoing primary single stage hypospadias repair . Further studies on larger numbers and external validation of these measurements is necessary.

Surgical management of primary severe hypospadias in children: an update focusing on penile curvature

Over the past two decades, assessment and treatment of associated curvature has emerged as a major issue in treating patients with proximal hypospadias. However, the cut-off for defining a curvature as clinically significant is still unclear, as not all patients are bothered by the same degree of curvature and, although the need for a method to assess the curvature objectively has been emphasized, no standard method yet exists. Curvature is multifactorial. The same degree of curvature can be due to any possible combination of skin and/or subcutaneous dartos tethering, a short urethral plate and an intrinsic corpora disproportion. Different strategies can be used to treat curvature, depending on the underlying cause, surgeon preferences, and the goals of the repair. In the past 10 years, use of urethral plate transection and ventral lengthening procedures has increased, although the lack of long-term follow-up data on ventral lengthening procedures suggests that the use of such procedures should be selective. Furthermore, straightening manoeuvres are influenced by the technique used for subsequent urethroplasty and, in turn, may influence the success rate of the urethroplasty. This Review provides a comprehensive overview of the major developments from the past 10 years in the management of severe proximal hypospadias in children.

Complications Following Primary Repair of Non-proximal Hypospadias in Children: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Purpose: The aim of this study was to systematically review the literature on the complications and postoperative outcomes of children with non-proximal hypospadias. Methods: Electronic databases including PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library CENTRAL were searched systematically from January 1990 to June 2020 for the literature that reported the postoperative outcomes of patients with non-proximal hypospadias. Non-proximal hypospadias encompassed distal and mid-penile hypospadias. Results: We included 44 studies involving 10,666 subjects. Urethrocutaneous fistula (UCF) was the most common complication with an incidence of 4.0% (95% CI, 3.1-5.0%). Incidence of overall complications was 8.0% (95% CI, 6.3-9.8%). Meta-regression analysis revealed that length of urethral stent indwelling (coefficient 0.006; 95% CI, 0.000-0.011; p = 0.036) and penile dressing (coefficient 0.010; 95% CI, 0.000-0.021; p = 0.048) were two risk factors for UCF. Multivariate meta-regression analysis did not identify any independent risk factors for UCF. No differences were found between stent and stentless groups in non-proximal hypospadias regarding incidences of UCF (OR, 0.589; 95% CI, 0.267-1.297), meatal stenosis (OR, 0.880; 95% CI, 0.318-2.437), and overall complications (OR, 0.695; 95% CI, 0.403-1.199). No differences were found between foreskin preservation and circumcision in terms of complications either. Conclusions: UCF is the most common complication following hypospadias repair with an incidence of 4.0%. Independent risk factors for UCF were not identified in the current research. Distal hypospadias repair without stent indwelling is not likely to compromise the postoperative outcome. Further studies should be designed to explore the differences between different surgical approaches and the potential risk factors for complications following hypospadias repair.