Perovic S, Barbagli G, Djinovic R, Sansalone S, Vallasciani S, Lazzeri M. Surgical challenge in patients who underwent failed hypospadias repair: is it time to change?
Urol Int 2010;
85:427-35. [PMID:
20847550 DOI:
10.1159/000319856]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 18] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/10/2010] [Accepted: 05/21/2010] [Indexed: 12/18/2022]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION
Our purpose was to evaluate patients who underwent failed hypospadias repair.
PATIENTS AND METHODS
We evaluated 4 different groups of patients who underwent failed hypospadias repair. Group 1: patients who underwent only urethral surgery; group 2: patients who underwent only corpora cavernosa surgery; group 3: patients who underwent urethral and corpora cavernosa surgery; group 4: patients who underwent complex reconstructive surgery. Success was defined as a functional urethra without fistula, with glandular meatus and acceptable esthetic appearance of the genitalia.
RESULTS
Out of 1,176 patients, group 1 included 301 patients (25.5%), group two 60 patients (5.2%), group three 166 patients (14.1%) and group four 649 patients (55.2%). The mean follow-up was 60.4 months. Out of 1,176 cases, 1,036 (88.1%) were considered successful and 140 (11.9%) failures.
CONCLUSION
In the majority of patients (55.2%) with failed hypospadias repair, urethral reconstruction is associated with complex surgical procedures to fully resurface glands, penile shaft and genitalia.
Collapse