| Literature DB >> 36187436 |
Mohamed Shahin1, Mohamed Abdalrazek2, Mohamed Abdelmaboud2, Ibrahim Mahmoud Elsayaad1, Muhammad Abdelhafez Mahmoud2, Mahmoud Abdelhady Mousa3, Ahmed Elshamy3, Omar Alsamahy4, Mohamed Rehan5, Sayed Elhady1, Ibrahim Gamaan2.
Abstract
Background: Proximal hypospadias, with significant curvature, is one of the most challenging anomalies. Great diversity and a large number of procedures described over the last 4 decades confirmed the fact that no single procedure has been universally accepted or successful. So, the aim of this study is to evaluate double-faced tubularized preputial flap (DFPF) versus transverse tubularized inner preputial flap (Duckett's procedure) as regards surgical outcomes, complications rate, and cosmetic results for repair of penoscrotal hypospadias with chordee. Patients and Methods. This was a prospective comparative study on 144 children with primary penoscrotal hypospadias with moderate or severe chordee, conducted at New Damietta and Assuit hospitals, Al-Azhar University, from March 2016 to March 2022. The patients were randomly divided into two equal groups; group A (n = 72) underwent DFPF, and group B (n = 72) underwent Duckett's procedure.Entities:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36187436 PMCID: PMC9519334 DOI: 10.1155/2022/6996933
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Adv Urol ISSN: 1687-6369
Figure 1Steps of the double-faced preputial flap (DFPF) technique. (a) Penoscrotal hypospadias. (b) Preputial flap is tubularized over Nelaton's catheter. (c) Pedicle of the flap completely dissected off dorsal shaft skin and corpora down to the penopubic angle. The neo-urethral tube with still attached outer preputial layer of the flap is transposed to the ventral aspect of the penis. (d) Outer preputial layer of the flap is trimmed and sutured to the remaining dorsal shaft skin.
Figure 2Steps of the transverse tubularized preputial island flap (Duckett's) technique. (a) Penoscrotal hypospadias. (b) Inner preputial flap is tubularized over Nelaton's catheter. (c) Neo-urethral tube is transposed to the ventral aspect of the penis with closure of skin. (d) Side view after repair was completed.
Demographic data and perioperative characteristics.
| Parameter | Group A ( | Group B ( |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Age/years | 2.8 (1–4.6) | 3.1 (1–5) | 0.36 |
| Length of the neo-urethra tube/mm | 32 (20–49) | 33 (25–54) | 0.51 |
| Follow-up/months | 28 (20–62) | 31 (22–66) | 0.08 |
There was no significant difference between both the groups.
Postoperative complications.
| Complications | Group A ( | Group B ( |
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Urethrocutaneous fistula | Number | 4 (5.6%) | 8 (11%) | 2.207 | 0.142 |
| Urethral stricture | Number | 0 (0%) | 3 (4.2%) | 5.171 | 0.027 |
| Glans dehiscence | Number | 0 (0%) | 2 (2.8%) | 3.294 | 0.052 |
| Meatal stenosis | Number | 3 (4.2%) | 3 (4.2%) | 0.000 | 1.000 |
| Penile rotation | Number | 4 (5.6%) | 2 (2.8%) | 2.085 | 0.048 |
| Total | 29 | 11 (15.3%) | 18 (25%) | 4.386 | 0.037 |
There was statistically significant differences between both the groups' P value <0.05.
HOSE score comparison between the two groups.
| Variable of HOSE | Score | Group A ( | Group B ( |
|---|---|---|---|
| Meatal location | |||
| Distal glanular | 4 | 72 | 70 |
| Proximal glanular | 3 | 0 | 0 |
| Coronal | 2 | 0 | 2 |
| Penile shaft | 1 | 0 | 0 |
|
| |||
| Meatal shape | |||
| Vertical slit | 2 | 23 | 22 |
| Circular | 1 | 49 | 50 |
|
| |||
| Urinary stream | |||
| Single stream | 2 | 68 | 64 |
| Sprayed | 1 | 4 | 8 |
|
| |||
| Erection | |||
| Straight | 4 | 72 | 72 |
| Mild angulation | 3 | — | — |
| Moderate angulation | 2 | — | — |
| Sever angulation | 1 | — | — |
|
| |||
| Fistula | |||
| None | 4 | 68 | 64 |
| Single distal | 3 | 1 | 2 |
| Single proximal | 2 | 3 | 6 |
| Multiple or complex | 1 | — | — |
The difference between the total HOSE scores for both the groups was statistically significant.
| Mean HOSE score | Group A ( | Group B ( |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Mean ± SD | 15 ± 0.8 | 12.9 ± 1.7 | <0.001 |
An independent-sample t-test was used; P value <0.001 HS.