Snodgrass vs Snodgraft operation to repair the distal hypospadias in the narrow urethral plate.
Dorsal inlay graft
Hypospadias
Narrow plate
Journal
Journal of pediatric urology
ISSN: 1873-4898
Titre abrégé: J Pediatr Urol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101233150
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Apr 2020
Apr 2020
Historique:
received:
10
07
2019
accepted:
13
01
2020
pubmed:
8
3
2020
medline:
22
6
2021
entrez:
8
3
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Using the Snodgraft technique in patients with urethral plate less than 8 mm to repair distal hypospadias is still debatable. Some authors assume that augmentation may be beneficial. We aimed to compare the outcomes of the Snodgrass vs Snodgraft procedure in patients with a narrow urethral plate less than 8 mm. This prospective randomized study included 60 children who had been treated by the Snodgrass or Snodgraft procedure for repair of distal penile hypospadias with narrow urethral plate from March 2017 to September 2018. They were randomized into two subgroups. Group 1 (30 patients) underwent tubularized incised plate urethroplasty, whereas the second group (30 patients) underwent the Snodgraft procedure by using the inner prepuce. Operative details, postoperative period, and complications were reported and statistically analyzed using IBM SPSS software package version 20.0. The operative time was longer for patients who underwent the Snodgraft procedure: 78 (55-95) and 110 (80-140) minutes in groups 1 and 2, respectively. In group 1, there was one case of meatal stenosis which was resolved by urethral dilation using the local anesthetic cream in the outpatient clinic. In addition, there was another case of distal penile fistula. In group 2, there was a case of complete wound disruption and another of distal penile fistula. There was no significant difference in the complication rate in any group. The operative time was longer in group 2 than in group 1 but with comparable outcomes. The Snodgraft procedure is not superior to the Snodgrass operation in the narrow healthy urethral plate.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Using the Snodgraft technique in patients with urethral plate less than 8 mm to repair distal hypospadias is still debatable. Some authors assume that augmentation may be beneficial. We aimed to compare the outcomes of the Snodgrass vs Snodgraft procedure in patients with a narrow urethral plate less than 8 mm.
METHODOLOGY
METHODS
This prospective randomized study included 60 children who had been treated by the Snodgrass or Snodgraft procedure for repair of distal penile hypospadias with narrow urethral plate from March 2017 to September 2018. They were randomized into two subgroups. Group 1 (30 patients) underwent tubularized incised plate urethroplasty, whereas the second group (30 patients) underwent the Snodgraft procedure by using the inner prepuce. Operative details, postoperative period, and complications were reported and statistically analyzed using IBM SPSS software package version 20.0.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The operative time was longer for patients who underwent the Snodgraft procedure: 78 (55-95) and 110 (80-140) minutes in groups 1 and 2, respectively. In group 1, there was one case of meatal stenosis which was resolved by urethral dilation using the local anesthetic cream in the outpatient clinic. In addition, there was another case of distal penile fistula. In group 2, there was a case of complete wound disruption and another of distal penile fistula. There was no significant difference in the complication rate in any group.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
The operative time was longer in group 2 than in group 1 but with comparable outcomes. The Snodgraft procedure is not superior to the Snodgrass operation in the narrow healthy urethral plate.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32144015
pii: S1477-5131(20)30008-5
doi: 10.1016/j.jpurol.2020.01.006
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
165.e1-165.e8Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2020 Journal of Pediatric Urology Company. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.