| Literature DB >> 24479107 |
Abstract
Hypospadias is a challenging field of urogenital reconstructive surgery with different techniques being currently used. Modern surgery claims that it is possible to create a functionally and cosmetically normal penis. Continuous re-evaluation and assessment of outcome may have a major impact on future clinical practice. Assessment of outcome includes: complication rate, cosmetic appearance of the penis, functional outcome (micturition, sexuality), and psychological factors such as quality of life and psychosexual life. This article briefly reviews current strategies of outcome assessment. Somehow in the future, we will be able to give an accurate estimation of the long-term consequences of being born with hypospadias.Entities:
Keywords: assessment; audit; complications; hypospadias; outcome
Year: 2014 PMID: 24479107 PMCID: PMC3895870 DOI: 10.3389/fped.2014.00002
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Pediatr ISSN: 2296-2360 Impact factor: 3.418
Follow-up period and percentage of lost to follow-up in randomly selected recent retrospective case series from 2013 (as sorted in PubMed by Recently Added).
| Reference | Complication rate (%) | Follow-up period (months) | Lost to follow-up | Topic |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Xu et al. ( | 18.1/21.5 | 22 (12–48) | Not given, obviously 100% | TIP vs. island flap |
| Vepakomma et al. ( | 45.8 | 6–35 | Not given, obviously 100% | Modified Koyangi |
| Hadidi ( | 7 | 48 (12–108) | Not given, obviously 100% | Mathieu redo |
| Aslam et al. ( | 7 | 56 (3–103) | 5% | TIP |
| Kallampallil and Hennayake ( | 4.3 (urethra), 18 non-retractile foreskin | 27 (13–52) | 5% | Foreskin reconstruction |
| Mane et al. ( | 12 | 32 (12–60) | Not given, obviously 100% | Modified TIP |
| Safwat et al. ( | 28.5 | 52 (3–102) | Not given, obviously 100% | Redo-surgery |
| Snodgrass et al. ( | 0–17 | 21 (1.5–82) | 4% | TIP |
| Chandrasekharam ( | 12 | 22 (1–62) | Unclear | Island flap |
| El Dahshoury et al. ( | 3.3 | 27.6 (27–30) | 100% follow-up | Island flap (double faced) |
| Dutta ( | 0 | 16 (8–38) | Not given, obviously 100% | Meatal and corpus spongiosum advancement |
Recent hypospadias assessment tools and their pros and cons.
| Score | Items | Advantages | Disadvantages |
|---|---|---|---|
| HOSE ( | Meatal location | Inter-observer reliability tested | Limited items |
| Meatal shape | No general appearance | ||
| Urinary stream | No penis size | ||
| Erection/curvature | No adequate preoperative assessment | ||
| Fistula | |||
| Mureau ( | Flaccid penile size | Assessment of penile size Not validated | Not tested for reliability and validity No erection/curvature Surgically non-correctable items No adequate preoperative assessment |
| Penile thickness | |||
| Glandular size | |||
| Glandular shape | |||
| Position of meatus | |||
| Scars | |||
| Scrotum/testis | |||
| General appearance | |||
| PPPS | Length of penis | High inter-rater reliability | Inherent subjective assessment |
| Position and shape of meatus | Validated for surgeon and patient | No adequate preoperative assessment | |
| Glandular shape | |||
| Erection/curvature | |||
| General appearance | |||
| HOPE | Position of meatus | Reference picture Implemented into prospective national database | Time consuming No adequate preoperative assessment |
| Meatal shape | |||
| Shape of glans | |||
| Shape of skin | |||
| Penile torsion | |||
| Erection/curvature | |||
| Hadidi score | Cosmesis and function | Easy to apply | Not validated and prone to subjectiveness |
Follow-up parameters after hypospadias surgery.
| Parameter | Measurement | Items | Age and setting |
|---|---|---|---|
| History | Questionnaire | Age of operation | Any age |
| Patient notes | Type of operation | ||
| Complications | |||
| Voiding | Questionnaire | Satisfaction with voiding | After toilet training |
| Stream | |||
| Spraying and Straining | |||
| Stand/sit | |||
| Post-void dribbling | |||
| LUTS | |||
| Uroflow | Volume | After toilet training (when symptoms?) | |
| Ultrasound | Residual volume | Adolescence | |
| Prostate | Adulthood | ||
| Benefit not clear | |||
| Score | International Prostate Symptom Score | Adulthood | |
| Expanded prostate index composite | |||
| Cosmesis | Questionnaire Physical examination | Concern about abnormal appearance | Any time, particularly in sexually active patients |
| Satisfaction with result | |||
| Penis size | |||
| Ashamed/fear of undressing | |||
| Being ridiculed | |||
| Curvature | |||
| Score | Junior Genital Perception Scale | Any time | |
| HOSE | |||
| PPPS | |||
| HOPE | |||
| Sexuality | Questionnaire | Satisfaction with sexual function | In sexually active patients |
| Masturbation | |||
| Intercourse | |||
| Erectile dysfunction | |||
| Ejaculatory problems | |||
| Inhibition in sexual contact | |||
| Relationship | |||
| Score | International index of erectile function | In sexually active patients | |
| Sexual Summary Score | |||
| Expanded prostate index composite | |||
| Psychology | Questionnaire | Beck Depression Inventory | School age, adolescence and adulthood, involvement of clinical psychologist mandatory |
| Goldberg General Health Questionnaire | |||
| Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory | |||
| Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Questionnaire | |||
| Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory | |||
| Child behavior checklist | |||
| Youth self report | |||
| Self-perception profile for adolescents | |||
| Case Western Reserve University Function Questionnaire | |||
| Self-Esteem and Relationship Questionnaire |