Cumulative re-operation rates during follow-up after hypospadias repair.
complication
hypospadias
long‐term follow‐up
outcome
re‐operation
Journal
BJU international
ISSN: 1464-410X
Titre abrégé: BJU Int
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100886721
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
03 Sep 2024
03 Sep 2024
Historique:
medline:
3
9
2024
pubmed:
3
9
2024
entrez:
3
9
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
To assess the cumulative rates of re-operations after hypospadias repair and evaluate long-term surgical outcomes at a tertiary paediatric urology centre. Retrospective analysis of 293 boys born between 1991 and 2003 undergoing hypospadias surgery was conducted. The study included 274 patients: 165 with distal, 34 with midshaft, and 75 with proximal hypospadias. Kaplan-Meier methods were used to evaluate the re-operation data. The median age at primary surgery was 1.3 years, with a median follow-up of 14.4 years. The overall re-operation rate was 48.2%, with approximately half of the problems detected within the first 3 months after surgery. The risk of re-operation was correlated with hypospadias severity, with 5- and 15-year re-operation risks at 39.3% and 51.8%, respectively. Limitations of the study include its retrospective nature and variations in surgical techniques from current standards. There is a significant risk of unplanned re-operations following hypospadias repair, increasing with the severity of the original condition. This underscores the need for extended follow-up and effective communication with patients and their families about the likelihood of requiring multiple surgeries for optimal outcomes.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2024 The Author(s). BJU International published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of BJU International.
Références
Scougall K, Bryce J, Baronio F et al. Predictors of surgical complications in boys with hypospadias: data from an international registry. World J Pediatr Surg 2023; 6: e000599
Ceccarelli PL, Lucaccioni L, Poluzzi F et al. Hypospadias: clinical approach, surgical technique and long‐term outcome. BMC Pediatr 2021; 21: 523
Lee OT, Durbin‐Johnson B, Kurzrock EA. Predictors of secondary surgery after hypospadias repair: a population based analysis of 5,000 patients. J Urol 2013; 190: 251–255
Sebastião YV, Brown CT, Cooper JN, McLeod DJ, DaJusta DG. Risk of re‐operation after outpatient distal hypospadias repair in a large, multistate cohort. J Pediatr Urol 2019; 15: e1–e6
Bush NC, Villanueva C, Snodgrass W. Glans size is an independent risk factor for urethroplasty complications after hypospadias repair. J Pediatr Urol 2015; 11: e1–e5
Cousin I, Basmaison C, Cousin E et al. Complication rates of proximal hypospadias: meta‐analyses of four surgical repairs. J Pediatr Urol 2022; 18: 587–597
Stojanovic B, Bizic M, Majstorovic M, Kojovic V, Djordjevic ML. Penile curvature incidence in hypospadias: can it be determined? Adv Urol 2011; 2011: 813205
Liang Y, Lyu Y, Huang Y, Wu M, Li X, Chen F. For the penile length‐how shall we choose the straightening procedures in hypospadias repair? Andrology 2024; 12: 1294–1300
Hennayake S, Almutairi F, Khasawneh G, Hajduk P, Bianchi A. Recurrent chordee in 59 adolescents and young adults following childhood hypospadias repair. J Pediatr Urol 2023; 19: 506–507
Hsieh MH, Wildenfels P, Gonzales ET. Surgical antibiotic practices among pediatric urologists in the United States. J Pediatr Urol 2011; 7: 192–197
Sommer C, Dreyer TK, Ernst A, Rawashdeh YF. Long‐term outcomes of foreskin reconstruction in distal hypospadias; a cohort study spanning twenty years. J Pediatr Urol 2024; 20: 410–415
Wilkinson DJ, Farrelly P, Kenny SE. Outcomes in distal hypospadias: a systematic review of the Mathieu and tubularized incised plate repairs. J Pediatr Urol 2012; 8: 307–312
Long CJ, Canning DA. Hypospadias: are we as good as we think when we correct proximal hypospadias? J Pediatr Urol 2016; 12: 96.e1–96.e5
EAU Guidelines Office. EAU Guidelines. http://uroweb.org/guidelines/compilations‐of‐all‐guidelines/
Braga LH, Lorenzo AJ, Bagli DJ, Pippi Salle JL, Caldamone A. Application of the STROBE statement to the hypospadias literature: report of the international pediatric urology task force on hypospadias. J Pediatr Urol 2016; 12: 367–380
Castagnetti M, El‐Ghoneimi A. Surgical management of primary severe hypospadias in children: an update focusing on penile curvature. Nat Rev Urol 2022; 19: 147–160
Fenner A. Pediatrics: 20 years of hypospadias repair—yet still no consensus. Nat Rev Urol 2010; 7: 647
Alshafei A, Cascio S, Boland F, O'Shea N, Hickey A, Quinn F. Comparing the outcomes of tubularized incised plate urethroplasty and dorsal inlay graft urethroplasty in children with hypospadias: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. J Pediatr Urol 2020; 16: 154–161
Pfistermuller KLM, McArdle AJ, Cuckow PM. Meta‐analysis of complication rates of the tubularized incised plate (TIP) repair. J Pediatr Urol 2015; 11: 54–59
Saltzman AF, Carrasco A, Colvin A, Campbell JB, Vemulakonda VM, Wilcox D. Patients with disorders of sex development and proximal hypospadias are at high risk for reoperation. World J Urol 2018; 36: 2051–2058
Xiao D, Nie X, Wang W et al. Comparison of transverse Island flap onlay and tubularized incised‐plate urethroplasties for primary proximal hypospadias: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. PLoS One 2014; 9: e106917
Nguyen S, Durbin‐Johnson B, Kurzrock EA. Reoperation after hypospadias repair: Long‐term analysis. J Urol 2021; 205: 1778–1784
Pohl HG, Rana S, Sprague BM, Beamer M, Rushton HG. Discrepant rates of hypospadias surgical complications: a comparison of U.S. News & World Report and pediatric health information system® data and published literature. J Urol 2020; 203: 616–623
Snodgrass W, Bush N. Do new complications develop during puberty after childhood hypospadias repair? J Urol 2022; 208: 696–701
Spinoit AF, Poelaert F, Groen LA, Van Laecke E, Hoebeke P. Hypospadias repair at a tertiary care center: long‐term followup is mandatory to determine the real complication rate. J Urol 2013; 189: 2276–2281
Tack LJW, Springer A, Riedl S et al. Adolescent and young adult urogenital outcome following childhood hypospadias repair: perfection revisited. J Urol 2021; 206: 734–744
Cimador M, Vallasciani S, Manzoni G, Rigamonti W, De Grazia E, Castagnetti M. Failed hypospadias in paediatric patients. Nat Rev Urol 2013; 10: 657–666
Durante L, Ghidini F, Panchieri F et al. Glans dehiscence after severe hypospadias repair. Is it a real complication? Clues from a study in post‐pubertal patients. Pediatr Surg Int 2023; 39: 101
Haid B, Becker T, Koen M et al. Penile appearance after hypospadias correction from a parent's point of view: comparison of the hypospadias objective penile evaluation score and parents penile perception score. J Pediatr Urol 2016; 12: e1–e7
Braga LHP, Lorenzo AJ, Bägli DJ et al. Ventral penile lengthening versus dorsal plication for severe ventral curvature in children with proximal hypospadias. J Urol 2008; 180(4 Suppl): 1743–1747
Nyirády P, Kelemen Z, Bánfi G, Rusz A, Majoros A, Romics I. Management of congenital penile curvature. J Urol 2008; 179: 1495–1498