| Literature DB >> 24944834 |
Raashid Hamid1, Aejaz A Baba1, Altaf H Shera1.
Abstract
Objective. Present study was undertaken to compare the results of two single stage hypospadias repairs, namely, Tubularized Incised Plate (TIP) repair and Mathieu's repair. Methods. The study included 100 patients of distal penile hypospadias, from January, 2008 to January, 2013. After a detailed history, local examination was performed with reference to the site of meatus, shape of glans, and presence of chordee. TIP repair was performed in 52 patients and Mathieu's repair in 48 patients. On follow-up, the patients were examined for the position of meatus, shape of meatus, urinary stream, urethrocutaneous fistula, and stricture formation. Results. The mean age of presentation was 6.2 ± 3.2 years (range 1.5-15years). The mean operative time was 63.7 ± 14.3 (45-90) minutes and 95.0 ± 19.1 (70-125) minutes in TIP and Mathieu's repair, respectively.Complications after surgery were urethero cutaneous fistula in 3(5.76%) and 7 (14.5%), meatal stenosis in 3(5.33%) and 4(8.33%), wound infection in 19.2% and 8.3% cases in TIP repair and Mathieu repair, respectively. The shape of meatus was slit-like and vertically oriented in 48(92.3%) patients who had undergone TIP repair. Conclusion. The Snodgrass repair is significantly faster, with more natural cosmetic appearance of the meatus than the Mathieu's repair.Entities:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24944834 PMCID: PMC4040194 DOI: 10.1155/2014/249765
Source DB: PubMed Journal: ISRN Urol ISSN: 2090-5807
Figure 1Perimeatal based “U” shaped incision.
Figure 2Tubularized incised plate urethroplasty.
Figure 3Formation of neourethra.
Figure 4Snodgrass procedure completed.
Figure 5Perimeatal based flap in Mathieu's procedure.
Figure 6Perimeatal based flap applied to form neourethra.
Figure 7Mathieu's procedure completed.
Patient Characteristics.
| TIP repair (group-A) ( | Mathieu's (group-B) ( |
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age ( Years) | 6.3 ± 3.3 | 5.9 ± 3.1 | 0.317 |
|
| |||
| Position of meatus | Coronal—16 (30.76%) | 24 (50.00%) | 0.005* |
| Subcoronal—14 (26.92%) | 8 (16.66%) | ||
| Distal—22 (42.30%) | 6 (33.33%) | ||
|
| |||
| Circumcised | 10 (19.23%) | 11 (22.91%) | 0.807 |
|
| |||
| Chordee | 25 (48.07%) | 22 (45.83%) | 0.844 |
*Significant at 5%.
Operative time and complications.
| TIP repair (group-A) ( | Mathieu's (group-B) ( |
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| Operative time | 63.7 ± 14.4 | 95 ± 9.1 | 0.003* |
|
| |||
| Complications | Snodgrass (group-A) ( | Mathieu's (group-B) ( |
|
|
| |||
| Wound infection | 3 (5.76%) | 4 (8.33%) | 0.153 |
| Bladder spasms | 10 (19.83%) | 9 (18.75%) | 1.000 |
| Flap necrosis | 0 | 3 (6.25%) | 0.107 |
| Meatal stenosis | 3 (5.76%) | 4 (8.33%) | 0.707 |
| Urethrocutaneous Fistula | 3 (5.76%) | 6 (12.5%) | 0.305 |
| Plateau uroflow curve | 17 (32.69%) | 14 (29.16%) | 0.829 |
*Significant at 5%.
Literature review.
| Variable | References | Snodgrass | Mathieu |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mean operative time (in minutes) | Oswald et al. [ | 75 min. | 115 min. |
|
Guo et al. [ | 106.1 min. | 94.0 min. | |
|
Chatterjee et al. [ | 45–110 min. | 40–80 min. | |
|
|
|
| |
|
| |||
| Postoperative complications |
Guo et al. [ | 8.3% | 25.6% |
|
Guo et al. [ | 13.3% | 5.5% | |
| Oswald et al. [ | 0% | 6.6% | |
|
Chatterjee et al. [ | 3.3% | 7.7% | |
|
Imamoğlu and Bakirtaş [ | 7.1% | 7.4% | |
|
Tonvichien and Niramis [ | 14.0% | — | |
|
Singh et al. [ | 11.5% | — | |
|
|
|
| |
| (2) Meatal stenosis |
Chatterjee et al. [ | 5.5% | 5.5% |
|
Guo et al. [ | 6.6% | 0% | |
| Oswald et al. [ | 0% | 3.3% | |
|
Al-Saied and Gamal [ | 6.2% | — | |
|
Singh et al. [ | 1.9% | — | |
|
|
|
| |
| (3) Repair breakdown |
Chatterjee et al. [ | 1.1% | 1.1% |
|
Guo et al. [ | 8.3% | 2.3% | |
|
Imamoğlu and Bakirtaş [ | 5.3% | 7.4% | |
|
Singh et al. [ | 1.9% | — | |
|
Guo et al. [ | 0% | 0% | |
|
|
|
| |
|
| |||
| Mean hospital stay (in days) |
Imamoğlu and Bakirtaş [ | 7.5 days | 5.7 days |
|
Guo et al. [ | 4.5 days | 3.9 days | |
|
Chatterjee et al. [ | 2.5 days | 3.0 days | |
|
|
|
| |
|
| |||
| Shape of meatus | Oswald et al. [ | Slit like in 100% | Rounded in 100% |
|
|
|
| |
|
| |||
| Cosmesis |
Chatterjee et al. [ | Excellent | |
|
Guo et al. [ | Highly satisfactory | ||
|
Imamoğlu and Bakirtaş [ | Highly satisfactory | ||
|
|
|
| |