| Literature DB >> 25197970 |
Dongdong Xiao1, Xin Nie2, Wenyue Wang2, Juan Zhou1, Ming Zhang1, Zhe Zhou1, Yang Zhao1, Meng Gu1, Zhong Wang1, Mujun Lu1.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This meta-analysis was conducted to compare postoperative outcomes between transverse island flap (TVIF) onlay and tubularized incised-plate (TIP) urethroplasties for primary proximal hypospadias.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25197970 PMCID: PMC4157843 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0106917
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Figure 1Flow diagram of eligible literatures identification from different medical databases.
Main characteristics of included studies.
| Publication | Studydesign | Region | No. ofpatients(Onlay/TIP) | Mean age ofpatients(Onlay/TIP) | Meanfollow-upduration(Onlay/TIP) | Preoperativetestosterone | Hypospadias location | Quality evaluation | ||||
| Proximalpenile | Penoscrotal | Scrotal | Perineal | NOS | Level ofevidence | |||||||
| 2014Xu | Retrospective cohort study | China | 93 | 4.5±3.3 y | 25 (14–51) m | 0 | 59 | 34 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 2b |
| 83 | 4.1±3.0 y | 22 (12–48) m | 0 | 50 | 33 | 0 | 0 | |||||
| 2013 Castagnetti | Retrospective cohort study | Italy | 31 | NA | 6.9 (3–8.4) y | 12 | 0 | 23 | 8 | 8 | 2b | |
| 26 | 4.2 (2.2–8.3) y | 9 | 0 | 21 | 5 | |||||||
| 2012Prat | Retrospective cohort study | Israel | 68 | 2.7±3.9 y | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | 9 | 2b |
| 6 | ||||||||||||
| 2010Moursy | Retrospective cohort study | Egypt | 57 | 15.3±6.035 m | 33.6±8.703 m | 0 | 29 | 24 | 4 | 0 | 8 | 2b |
| 96 | 14.9±5.306 m | 33.9±9.91 m | 0 | 54 | 27 | 15 | 0 | |||||
| 2009 Sujijantararat | Retrospective cohort study | Thailand | 20 | 48 (9–132) m | 40 m | 0 | 0 | 20 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 2b |
| 16 | 49 (10–348) m | 32 m | 0 | 0 | 16 | 0 | 0 | |||||
| 2007Braga | Retrospective cohort study | Canada | 40 | 17.8 (10–58) m | 38.8 (16–80) m | 10 | 0 | 40 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 2b |
| 35 | 17 (9–91) m | 30 (6–74) m | 12 | 0 | 35 | 0 | 0 | |||||
All patients underwent a routine follow-up examination at 6 and 12 months postoperatively.
Summary of surgical procedures.
| Publication | Detailed surgicaltechnique | Coverage of the neourethra | Suture for urethroplasty | Catheter size | Catheter duration | Suture forglansplasty or theremaining skin | Urinary diversion |
| 2014Xu | Standard Onlay | Adjacent tissues &dartos pedicle | 5–0 Vicrylrunning suture | 6–12 F | NA | NA | NA |
| Standard TIP | |||||||
| 2013Castagnetti | Standard Onlay | NA | 6–0 absorbablesutures | 6–8 F siliconecatheter | 9 d | NA | NA |
| Standard TIP | |||||||
| 2012Prat | Standard Onlay | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | Silastic stentsfor 24 h to 6–7 d |
| Standard TIP | |||||||
| 2010Moursy | Standard Onlay | Subcutaneous tissue | 6–0 Vicrylsutures | 10 Ch urethralcatheter | 8 d | 6–0 Vicrylsutures | Suprapubic cystocathfor 14 d |
| Standard TIP | |||||||
| 2009Sujijantararat | Standard Onlay | Vascularized dartos flapfrom dorsal penile skin | 6–0 Monocrylrunning suture | 6 F nasogastrictube | NA | 6–0 Vicrylinterruptedsutures | NA |
| Standard TIP | |||||||
| 2007Braga | Standard Onlay | Dartos flap &spongiosal tissue | 7–0 polydioxanone running suture | 8 F feedingtube | 10.1 (7–14) | NA | 8 Fr silastic stentor an 8 Fr Foleycatheter for 7–14 d |
| Standard TIP | Vascular pedicle | 8.8 (7–10) |
Mean catheter duration was not significantly different between both Onlay and TIP.
Preoperative accompanied disorders and postoperative complications of included studies.
| Publication | Surgicaltechnique | No. ofPatients | Dorsalplication | Preoperative accompanied disorders | Postoperative complications | ||||||||||
| Chordee | Penoscrotaltransposition | Bifidscrotum | Congenitalhernia | Undescendedtestis | Total | Fistula | Recurrentcurvature | Dehiscence | Diverticulum | Meatalstenosis | Urethral stricture | ||||
| 2014Xu | Onlay | 93 | 48 | 53 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 20 | 10 | 3 | 0 | 4 | 1 | 2 |
| TIP | 83 | 39 | 45 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 5 | 15 | 8 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | |
| 2013Castagnetti | Onlay | 31 | 23 | 31 | NA | NA | NA | NA | 5 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| TIP | 26 | 18 | 26 | NA | NA | NA | NA | 7 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | |
| 2012Prat | Onlay | 68 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | 32 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| TIP | 6 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | 3 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | |
| 2010Moursy | Onlay | 57 | NA | NA | 0 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 4 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| TIP | 96 | NA | NA | 0 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 13 | 8 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 3 | 0 | |
| 2009Sujijantararat | Onlay | 20 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | 6 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| TIP | 16 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | 6 | 4 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | |
| 2007Braga | Onlay | 40 | 27 | NA | 16 | NA | NA | NA | 18 | 8 | 5 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 2 |
| TIP | 35 | 19 | NA | 14 | NA | NA | NA | 21 | 15 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 0 | |
Figure 2Forest plots of postoperative complications between TVIF onlay and TIP.
Figure 3Funnel plot of publication bias for total complication.
Cosmetic and functional evaluations of included studies.
| Publication | Surgical technique | No. ofPatients | Evaluations otherthan generalassessments | PPPS | ||||||
| Penilelength | Meatus | Glans shape | Penile skin | Penileaxis | Generalappearance | Total | ||||
| 2014Xu | Onlay | 93 | PPPS | 2 (1–2) | 2 (1–3) | 2 (2–3) | 2 (2–3) | 2 (1–3) | 2 (2–3) | 11 (10–15) |
| TIP | 83 | 2 (1–2) | 2 (2–3) | 2 (2–3) | 2 (2–3) | 2 (1–3) | 2 (2–3) | 12 (10–15) | ||
| 2013Castagnetti | Onlay | 31 | PPPS &UrinarySyptoms | 1 (1–2) | 2 (2–2) | 2 (2–2.5) | 2 (1–2) | 2 (1–2) | 2 (2–2) | 11 (10–12) |
| TIP | 26 | 2 (1–2) | 2 (2–3) | 2 (2–2) | 2 (2–2) | 2 (1–2) | 2 (2–2) | 11 (11–12) | ||
| 2012Prat | Onlay | 68 | NA | |||||||
| TIP | 6 | |||||||||
| 2010Moursy | Onlay | 57 | Uroflowmetry | |||||||
| TIP | 96 | |||||||||
| 2009Sujijantararat | Onlay | 20 | NA | |||||||
| TIP | 16 | |||||||||
| 2007Braga | Onlay | 40 | Uroflowmetry | |||||||
| TIP | 35 | |||||||||