| Literature DB >> 35462581 |
Mohammad Daboos1, Khalid Hefney2, Muhammad Abdelhafez Mahmoud2, Ahmed Salama2, Yousef Mohammed2, Mohammed Hussein2, Mohamed Abdelmaboud2, Tharwat Hussein2, Yasser Ashour2, Samir Gouda2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The preputial onlay island flap technique has been popularized for hypospadias repair as a result of offering a consistent combination of acceptable functional and cosmetic results. Like other techniques, urethrocutaneous fistulae and stricture continues to be the most common complications, in addition to other complications, which could be attributed to the compromise in flaps vascularity. Some authors describe a technique that resolves some of these problems by combining the unique benefits of the double faced preputial flaps. THE AIM OF THIS STUDY: - to evaluate double faced preputial onlay island flap technique for complications rate, outcomes of surgical procedure, and cosmetic results in comparison to transverse inner preputial flap technique. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a prospective randomized controlled study that included 68 patients with anterior, mid-penile, and posterior penile hypospadias, with shallow and narrow urethral plate of size less than 6 mm, who underwent single-stage repair using preputial flaps, conducted at the department of pediatric surgery (Al-Azhar University, Cairo, Egypt), between May 2019 and October 2021, to evaluate double faced transverse preputial onlay island flap technique. Thirty-four patients underwent double faced transverse preputial onlay island flap (group A) and another 34 patients underwent inner transverse preputial onlay island flap (control group) (group B). The follow-up period ranged from 12 to 26 months.Entities:
Keywords: Double face; Hypospadias in pediatrics; Inner preputial flap; Onlay island flap
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35462581 PMCID: PMC9035285 DOI: 10.1007/s11255-022-03217-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int Urol Nephrol ISSN: 0301-1623 Impact factor: 2.266
Fig. 1Double faced transverse preputial onlay flap. A Anterior penile hypospadias B Dissection of double faced transverse preputial flap C This inner (onlay) flap was sutured to the urethral plate with running 6-zero vicryl sutures D The outer preputial flap was trimmed to cover the ventral shaft skin defect
Fig. 2Inner transverse preputial flap. A Dissection of transverse preputial flap. B the flap transposed ventrally and sutured. C Glannular wings closure and anchoring dartos fascia over the repair D The skin was sutured to remaining skin on both lateral sides (ventral skin closure) using Bayers flap
Complication rate of double face preputial onlay island flap (Group A) and inner preputial onlay island flap (Group B)
| Complications | Group A ( | Group B ( | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Urethrocutaneous fistula | 1 (2.9%) | 3 (8.8%) | 3.935 | 0.047* |
| Flap necrosis | 0 (0.0%) | 2 (5.8%) | 4.201 | 0.020* |
| Glanular dehiscence | 2 (5.8%) | 3 (8.8%) | 2.207 | 0.137 |
| Penile rotation | 1 (2.9%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0.986 | 0.321 |
| Urethral diverticulum | 1 (2.9%) | 1 (2.9%) | 0.000 | 1.000 |
| Total complications | 5 (14.7%) | 9 (26.4%) | 6.924 | < 0.031* |
The difference between the complication rates in both groups was statistically significant.
Using: chi-square test; p-value > 0.05 NS; *p-value < 0.05 S; **p-value < 0.001 HS
HOSE questionnaire variables for both groups
| Variable of HOSE | HOSE score | No of patients in Group A ( | No of patients in Group B ( |
|---|---|---|---|
| Distal glannular | 4 | 32 | 29 |
| Proximal glannular | 3 | 2 | 2 |
| Coronal | 2 | 0 | 1 |
| Penile shaft | 1 | 0 | 2 |
| Vertical slit | 2 | 11 | 13 |
| Circular | 1 | 23 | 21 |
| Single stream | 2 | 31 | 29 |
| Sprayed | 1 | 3 | 5 |
| Straight | 4 | 34 | 34 |
| Mild angulation | 3 | – | – |
| Moderate angulation | 2 | – | – |
| Sever angulation | 1 | – | – |
| None | 4 | 33 | 31 |
| Single distal | 3 | 1 | 1 |
| Single proximal | 2 | 2 | |
| Multiple or complex | 1 | – | – |
In group A, the score ranged between 12 and 16, while in group B, the score ranged between 10 and 16.
HOSE score, defined by Holland et al. in 2001
The difference between HOSE score for both groups was statistically significant
| Mean HOSE score | Group A ( | Group B ( | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mean ± SD | 14.9 ± 1.1 | 12.4 ± 1.7 | < 0.001** |
Using: independent sample t-test; p-value < 0.001 HS
Fig. 3Late pictures of double faced onlay island preputial flap technique