EARLY RESULTS OF HYPOSPADIAS REPAIR USING FORESKIN
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
Keywords
penile hypospadias, posterior hypospadias, free foreskin graft, vascularized foreskin flap.
References
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.