EARLY RESULTS OF HYPOSPADIAS REPAIR USING FORESKIN

Duy Việt Nguyễn, Tiến Mạnh Nguyễn

Main Article Content

Abstract

Objective: To describe the early results of penile hypospadias and posterior hypospadias repair using foreskin. Subjects and methods: a retrospective review of medical records for patients who underwent repair of penile hypospadias and posterior hypospadias using a vascularized foreskin flap and free foreskin graft at the National Children's Hospital from January 2023 to December 2024. Statistical analysis was conducted using R Studio software. Results: A total of 185 patients with hypospadias repair using a vascularized foreskin flap and a free foreskin graft. Among these, 112 patients had penile hypospadias, accounting for 60.5% of the cases, while 73 patients had posterior hypospadias, making up 39.5%. The median age at the time of surgery was 44 months, with a range from 19 to 143 months. The average length of the urethral defect was 3.5 ± 0.8 cm, varying between 1.5 and 7.0 cm. The overall complication rate was 22.7%. Notably, the complication rate for patients with penile hypospadias was approximately half that of those with posterior hypospadias, with rates of 17.0% and 31.5%, respectively (p = 0.016, indicating a statistically significant difference). However, the incidence of complications did not correlate with the age at surgery, the length of the urethral defect, or the type of flap used, including a vascularized foreskin flap, a sized foreskin flap, and a free foreskin graft (p > 0.05). Conclusion: The overall complication rate after penile hypospadias and posterior hypospadias surgery using a foreskin is approximately one-fifth of cases. In penile hypospadias, the complication rate is about half that of posterior cases.

Article Details

References

Devine CJ., Jr. and Horton CE (1961). A one stage hypospadias repair. J Urol, 85: 166-72.
2. Fang Y, Sun N, Song H et al (2022). A multicenter study on surgical procedure selection and risk factor analysis of postoperative complications after TIP and Duckett hypospadias repair. BMC Urol, 22(1): 131.
3. Cui X, He Y, Huang W et al (2020). Clinical efficacy of transverse preputial island flap urethroplasty for single-stage correction of proximal hypospadias: a single-centre experience in Chinese patients. BMC Urol, 20(1): 118.
4. Stock JA, Cortez J, Scherz HC et al (1994). The management of proximal hypospadias using a 1-stage hypospadias repair with a preputial free graft for neourethral construction and a preputial pedicle flap for ventral skin coverage. J Urol, 152(6 Pt 2): 2335-7.
5. Faure A, Bouty A, Nyo YL et al (2016). Two-stage graft urethroplasty for proximal and complicated hypospadias in children: A retrospective study. J Pediatr Urol, 12(5): 286 e1-286 e7.
6. Babu R and Chandrasekharam VVS (2021). Meta-analysis comparing the outcomes of single stage (foreskin pedicled tube) versus two stage (foreskin free graft & foreskin pedicled flap) repair for proximal hypospadias in the last decade. J Pediatr Urol, 17(5): 681-689.
7. Cambareri GM, Yap M, and Kaplan GW (2016). Hypospadias repair with onlay preputial graft: a 25-year experience with long-term follow-up. BJU Int, 118(3): 451-7.
8. Wang CX, Zhang WP and Song HC (2019). Complications of proximal hypospadias repair with transverse preputial island flap urethroplasty: a 15-year experience with long-term follow-up. Asian J Androl, 21(3): 300-303.