Hypospadias: clinical approach, surgical technique and long-term outcome.
Hypospadias
Long term outcome
Surgery
Journal
BMC pediatrics
ISSN: 1471-2431
Titre abrégé: BMC Pediatr
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100967804
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
26 11 2021
26 11 2021
Historique:
received:
17
06
2021
accepted:
13
10
2021
entrez:
27
11
2021
pubmed:
28
11
2021
medline:
15
12
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Hypospadias is one of the most common congenital abnormalities in male newborn. There is no universal approach to hypospadias surgical repair, with more than 300 corrective procedures described in current literature. The reoperation rate within 6-12 months of the initial surgery is most frequently used as an outcome measure. These short-term outcomes may not reflect those encountered in adolescence and adult life. This study aims to identify the long-term cosmetic, functional and psychosexual outcomes. Medical records of boys who had undergone surgical repair of hypospadias by a single surgical team led by the same surgeon at a single centre between August 2001 and December 2017 were reviewed. Families were contacted by telephone and invited to participate. Surgical outcome was assessed by combination of clinical examination, a life-related interview and 3 validated questionnaires (the Penile Perception Score-PPS, the Hypospadias Objective Score Evaluation-HOSE, the International Index of Erectile Function-5-IIEF5). Outcomes were compared according to age, severity of hypospadias, and respondent (child, parent and surgeon). 187 children and their families agreed to participate in the study. 46 patients (24.6%) presented at least one complication after the repair, with a median elapsed time of 11.5 months (6.5-22.5). Longitudinal differences in surgical corrective procedures (p < 0.01), clinical approach (p < 0.01), hospitalisation after surgery (p < 0.01) were found. Cosmetic data from the PPS were similar among children and parents, with no significant differences in child's age or the type of hypospadias: 83% of children and 87% of parents were satisfied with the cosmetic result. A significant difference in functional outcome related to the type of hypospadias was reflected responses to HOSE amongst all groups of respondents: children (p < 0.001), parents (p=0.02) and surgeon (p < 0.01). The child's HOSE total score was consistently lower than the surgeon (p < 0.01). The HOSE satisfaction rate on functional outcome was 89% for child and 92% for parent respondents. Surgeons and clinicians should be cognizant of the long-term outcomes following hypospadias surgical repair and this should be reflected in a demand for a standardised approach to repair and follow-up.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Hypospadias is one of the most common congenital abnormalities in male newborn. There is no universal approach to hypospadias surgical repair, with more than 300 corrective procedures described in current literature. The reoperation rate within 6-12 months of the initial surgery is most frequently used as an outcome measure. These short-term outcomes may not reflect those encountered in adolescence and adult life. This study aims to identify the long-term cosmetic, functional and psychosexual outcomes.
METHODS
Medical records of boys who had undergone surgical repair of hypospadias by a single surgical team led by the same surgeon at a single centre between August 2001 and December 2017 were reviewed. Families were contacted by telephone and invited to participate. Surgical outcome was assessed by combination of clinical examination, a life-related interview and 3 validated questionnaires (the Penile Perception Score-PPS, the Hypospadias Objective Score Evaluation-HOSE, the International Index of Erectile Function-5-IIEF5). Outcomes were compared according to age, severity of hypospadias, and respondent (child, parent and surgeon).
RESULTS
187 children and their families agreed to participate in the study. 46 patients (24.6%) presented at least one complication after the repair, with a median elapsed time of 11.5 months (6.5-22.5). Longitudinal differences in surgical corrective procedures (p < 0.01), clinical approach (p < 0.01), hospitalisation after surgery (p < 0.01) were found. Cosmetic data from the PPS were similar among children and parents, with no significant differences in child's age or the type of hypospadias: 83% of children and 87% of parents were satisfied with the cosmetic result. A significant difference in functional outcome related to the type of hypospadias was reflected responses to HOSE amongst all groups of respondents: children (p < 0.001), parents (p=0.02) and surgeon (p < 0.01). The child's HOSE total score was consistently lower than the surgeon (p < 0.01). The HOSE satisfaction rate on functional outcome was 89% for child and 92% for parent respondents.
CONCLUSION
Surgeons and clinicians should be cognizant of the long-term outcomes following hypospadias surgical repair and this should be reflected in a demand for a standardised approach to repair and follow-up.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34836527
doi: 10.1186/s12887-021-02941-4
pii: 10.1186/s12887-021-02941-4
pmc: PMC8620229
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
523Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
J Pediatr Urol. 2016 Aug;12(4):196.e1-5
pubmed: 27296789
Curr Opin Urol. 2012 Nov;22(6):453-6
pubmed: 22918035
BJU Int. 2001 Aug;88(3):255-8
pubmed: 11488741
J Pediatr Urol. 2016 Feb;12(1):28.e1-7
pubmed: 26279102
Open Access J Urol. 2010 Apr 29;2:57-62
pubmed: 24198614
J Pediatr Urol. 2020 Apr;16(2):166.e1-166.e8
pubmed: 32061490
J Urol. 2021 Sep;206(3):734-744
pubmed: 33955779
J Plast Surg Hand Surg. 2017 Jun;51(3):172-177
pubmed: 27687614
Int J Impot Res. 2002 Aug;14(4):245-50
pubmed: 12152112
J Urol. 2008 Sep;180(3):1080-4; discussion 1084
pubmed: 18639292
Indian J Urol. 2016 Jul-Sep;32(3):216-20
pubmed: 27555680
Healthcare (Basel). 2020 Feb 05;8(1):
pubmed: 32033376
Br J Plast Surg. 1989 May;42(3):251-5
pubmed: 2758195
J Pediatr Urol. 2017 Feb;13(1):19-27
pubmed: 28089292
J Pediatr Psychol. 2008 Jun;33(5):520-35
pubmed: 18056145
Can Urol Assoc J. 2017 Jan-Feb;11(1-2Suppl1):S48-S53
pubmed: 28265319
Arab J Urol. 2013 Jun;11(2):174-81
pubmed: 26558078
J Pediatr Urol. 2011 Apr;7(2):145-57
pubmed: 21236734
Indian J Urol. 2016 Apr-Jun;32(2):93-102
pubmed: 27127350
J Pediatr Urol. 2011 Oct;7(5):504-15
pubmed: 21429804
J Urol. 1996 Feb;155(2):703-6
pubmed: 8558709
J Pediatr Surg. 2021 Aug;56(8):1411-1416
pubmed: 33276974
J Pediatr Surg. 2006 Mar;41(3):463-72
pubmed: 16516617
J Urol. 2014 Aug;192(2):524-9
pubmed: 24518769
J Urol. 1995 Oct;154(4):1351-5
pubmed: 7658535
Can Urol Assoc J. 2008 Feb;2(1):23-31
pubmed: 18542723
J Sex Med. 2020 Sep;17(9):1665-1675
pubmed: 32444342
Front Pediatr. 2014 Jan 20;2:2
pubmed: 24479107
J Pediatr Urol. 2020 Oct;16(5):660.e1-660.e8
pubmed: 32800709
Int Urol Nephrol. 2011 Mar;43(1):47-54
pubmed: 20556511
J Pediatr Urol. 2014 Jun;10(3):446-50
pubmed: 24582083
Urol Int. 2015;95(2):137-41
pubmed: 26201846
J Pediatr Urol. 2016 Feb;12(1):32.e1-8
pubmed: 26701106