A prospective randomized clinical trial to evaluate methods of postoperative care of hypospadias.

PURPOSE: Hypospadias repair is a common operation performed by pediatric urologists. Perhaps the greatest variable and source of controversy of postoperative care is the surgical dressing. We hypothesized that using no dressing would achieve surgically comparable results to those traditionally achieved by a postoperative dressing and it would also simplify postoperative parent delivered home care. Accordingly we designed a prospective randomized clinical trial to compare surgical outcome and postoperative care after hypospadias repair in boys with no dressing and those who received 1 of the 2 most common types of dressing.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a 12-month period 120 boys with an average age of 2.2 years underwent primary 1-stage hypospadias repair at a single center with 4 participating surgeons. Repair was performed in 60 boys with proximal and 60 with distal hypospadias on an outpatient basis. Ethics and Internal Review Board approval, and informed consent were obtained. Boys were then prospectively randomized to receive no dressing, an adhesive biomembrane dressing or a compressive wrap dressing. Comprehensive instructions on postoperative care were distributed to all families and a questionnaire was distributed to the parents at the initial followup. Surgical outcome was evaluated and questionnaire responses were analyzed. Fisher's exact test was done to test the significance of differences in surgical outcomes and questionnaire responses.
RESULTS: A total of 117 boys completed the prospective randomized trial. Surgical staff withdrew 3 cases from randomized selection to place a dressing for postoperative hemostasis. We obtained 101 questionnaires for response analysis. The type or absence of the dressing did not correlate with the need for repeat procedures, urethrocutaneous fistula, or meatal stenosis or regression. Analysis revealed less narcotic use in the no dressing group and fewer telephone calls to the urology nurse, or on-call resident and/or fellow. These findings were statistically significant. In addition, there were more unscheduled visits to the urology clinic, emergency room or primary physician office by boys with than without a dressing. Furthermore, 29% of the parents were not psychologically prepared to remove the dressing and 12% were so reluctant that the dressing was removed at the urology outpatient clinic.
CONCLUSIONS: The surgical outcome and rate of adverse events or complications were not compromised without a postoperative dressing. An absent dressing simplified postoperative ambulatory parent delivered home care. We recommend that dressings should be omitted from routine use after hypospadias repair.

RCT Entities:   Population Interventions Outcomes