INTRODUCTION: We sought to compare the surgical outcomes of hypospadias repair with correction of inguinal pathology using a single penile incision vs. conventional approach using two incisions. METHODS: This is a retrospective study that reviewed all patients who underwent concurrent surgical repair for both hypospadias and inguinal pathologies between January 2003 and November 2015. Patients were classified into Group A, conventional (inguinal or scrotal and penile incision) approach; or Group B, single penile incision approach. Baseline characteristics, including age, degree of hypospadias, type and laterality of inguinal pathology, operative time, and surgical outcomes, were collected. Between groups, variable comparisons were analyzed using Mann-Whitney U-Test and Fisher-exact test. Statistical significant set at <0.05. RESULTS: Seventy-six patients (Group A: 40; Group B: 36) were eligible for study. Baseline characteristics of both groups were comparable, with no significant statistical difference. Overall mean operative time for Group A was 139.3 ± 56.2 minutes, while Group B was 107.8 ± 46.7 minutes (Z=2.6; U=470.5; p=0.009). Two patients in Group A and two patients in Group B had testicular ascension, all of which also had hypospadias-related complications (p=1.0). Hypospadias-related complications in Group A included seven urethrocutaneous fistulae and two repair dehiscence. Eight urethrocutaneous fistulae, one urethral stricture, and two repair dehiscence occurred in Group B (p=0.448). Surgical outcome appearance in both groups were comparable, with no statistically significant difference (p=0.466). CONCLUSIONS: Single penile incision for both hypospadias repair and correction of inguinal pathology is a feasible technique and comparable to the conventional approach, with similar surgical outcomes and shorter overall operative time.
INTRODUCTION: We sought to compare the surgical outcomes of hypospadias repair with correction of inguinal pathology using a single penile incision vs. conventional approach using two incisions. METHODS: This is a retrospective study that reviewed all patients who underwent concurrent surgical repair for both hypospadias and inguinal pathologies between January 2003 and November 2015. Patients were classified into Group A, conventional (inguinal or scrotal and penile incision) approach; or Group B, single penile incision approach. Baseline characteristics, including age, degree of hypospadias, type and laterality of inguinal pathology, operative time, and surgical outcomes, were collected. Between groups, variable comparisons were analyzed using Mann-Whitney U-Test and Fisher-exact test. Statistical significant set at <0.05. RESULTS: Seventy-six patients (Group A: 40; Group B: 36) were eligible for study. Baseline characteristics of both groups were comparable, with no significant statistical difference. Overall mean operative time for Group A was 139.3 ± 56.2 minutes, while Group B was 107.8 ± 46.7 minutes (Z=2.6; U=470.5; p=0.009). Two patients in Group A and two patients in Group B had testicular ascension, all of which also had hypospadias-related complications (p=1.0). Hypospadias-related complications in Group A included seven urethrocutaneous fistulae and two repair dehiscence. Eight urethrocutaneous fistulae, one urethral stricture, and two repair dehiscence occurred in Group B (p=0.448). Surgical outcome appearance in both groups were comparable, with no statistically significant difference (p=0.466). CONCLUSIONS: Single penile incision for both hypospadias repair and correction of inguinal pathology is a feasible technique and comparable to the conventional approach, with similar surgical outcomes and shorter overall operative time.
Authors: Huong Le; Rebecca Kleinerman; Oren Z Lerman; Daniel Brown; Robert Galiano; Geoffrey C Gurtner; Stephen M Warren; Jamie P Levine; Pierre B Saadeh Journal: Wound Repair Regen Date: 2008 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 3.617
Authors: Brenda J Shields; Daniel M Cohen; Cynthia Harbeck-Weber; Jean D Powers; Gary A Smith Journal: Clin Pediatr (Phila) Date: 2003-04 Impact factor: 1.168
Authors: Fred van der Toorn; Tom P V M de Jong; Robert P E de Gier; Piet R H Callewaert; Eric H J R van der Horst; Martijn G Steffens; Piet Hoebeke; Rien J M Nijman; Nicol C Bush; Katja P Wolffenbuttel; Marleen M C van den Heijkant; Jan-Willem van Capelle; Mark Wildhagen; Reinier Timman; Jan J V van Busschbach Journal: J Pediatr Urol Date: 2013-03-11 Impact factor: 1.830