Keywords
Penile foreskin
Urology
Pediatrics
How to Cite
Copyright © | All rights reserved.
The journal holds the exclusive copyright for the publication of this article under the terms of Brazilian law 9610/98.
Partial reproduction
The use of parts of the texts, figures and questionnaire of the article is free, being mandatory the citation of the authors and journal.
Total reproduction
It is expressly prohibited and must be authorized by the journal.
Abstract
Objective: To report the surgical repair of distal hypospadias combined with foreskin reconstruction. Method: Retrospective observational study of children who underwent distal hypospadias repair with preputioplasty between 2014 and 2022. Results: A total of 70 patients were consecutively operated on by the same surgeon, the majority with the Tubularized Incised Plate -TIP/Snodgrass technique (65.7%), followed in frequency by the inlay graft (21,4%), the Thiersch-Duplay (11.4%) and the Glans Approximation Procedure - GAP (1.4%) techniques. Complications requiring subsequent intervention occurred in 12 cases (15.7%), the vast majority being phimosis related to the preputial reconstruction (10 cases, 14.3%, 9 of them requiring circumcision, one responded well to local steroid treatment). Only 2 patients (2.8%) presented complications related to the hypospadias repair itself (urethral stenosis - 1 meatal, 1 glandular). One patient had an isolated hematoma that resolved spontaneously. Conclusion: In our experience, adding a preputial reconstruction to the distal hypospadias repair does not increase the rate of complications related to the hypospadias repair itself, as compared to the rate usually reported in the literature. On the other hand, it appears that preputioplasty presents its own risk of complications that must be discussed with the families that desire this kind of surgical intervention.
References
ASKARPOUR S, et al. Comparative Study of Modifying Meatal Advancement Glandular with Release Chordi versus Snodgrass Surgical Methods Regarding the Repair of Distal Hypospadias. World J Plast Surg., 2021; 10(3): 73-77.
ABDELWAHAB M, et al. Comparative study between Snodgrass technique with preputioplasty and Snodgrass technique with circumcision in treatment of distal hypospadias. Benha Med J., 2023; 40(1): 191-205.
ALSHAMMARI D e HARPER L. Reconfiguração da glande desepitelizada (DeGRe) para reparo de hipospádia distal. Journal of pediatric urology, 2020; 17(1): P59.e1-59.e8.
BORKAR N, et al. Tubularized incised plate urethroplasty and grafted tubularized incised plate urethroplasty: systematic review, meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis. World J Pediatr Surg 2024; 7: e000707.
CHAKRABORTY M, et al. Study of Surgical Outcome of hypospadias correction by modified Snodgrass (Tubularised Incised Plate Urethroplasty) Technique. Int J Adv Res., 2023; 11: 530-538.
CHHABRA A, et al. A comparative study of distal hypospadias repair combined with preputioplasty vs repair using conventional circumcision technique. J Pharm Negative Results, 2022; 13(9): 141-147.
DECTER RM e FRANZONI DF. Distal hypospadias repair by the modified Thiersch-Duplay technique with or without hinging the urethral plate: a near ideal way to correct distal hypospadias. J Urol., 1999; 162 (3 Pt 2): 1156-8.
FASCHING G, et al. Foreskin reconstruction and preservation of a thin distal urethra: a challenge in tubularized incised plate urethroplasty. Pediatr Surg Int., 2011; 27(7): 755-60.
HADIDI AT. History of hypospadias: Lost in translation. J Pediatr Surg., 2017; 52(2): 211-217.
HERZBERG H, et al. Operative techniques and long-term outcomes of hypospadias repair in the absence of preputial skin after neonatal circumcision. J Pediatr Surg., 2022; 57(11): 676-680.
HONKISZ I, et al. Foreskin healing after distal hypospadias repair: Does stenting affect the outcome? Adv Clin Exp Med., 2020; 29(12): 1487-1490.
KOLON TF e GONZALES ET. The dorsal inlay graft for hypospadias repair. J Urol., 2000; 163(6): 1941-3.
MANUELE R, et al. Foreskin reconstruction at the time of single-stage hypospadias repair: is it a safe procedure? Int Urol Nephrol., 2019; 51(2): 187-191.
MONTE R, et al. Fatores determinantes para reoperação em hipospádia distal: uma revisão de integrativa da literatura. J Pesq Cir Clín., 2019; 10(1): 48-53.
MOSA H, et al. Are there anatomical limiting factors to foreskin reconstruction at the time of single-stage hypospadias repair? J Pediatr Urol., 2023; 19(6): 700.e1-700.e10.
NORI I. Reparo de hipospádio Snodgrass, uretroplastia em um estágio para hipospádia central e distal. Experiência clínica e resultados de 44 pacientes. J Med Res., 2015; 14.
PAPOUIS G, et al. Reparo de hipospádia distal e preputioplastia em uma única operação. Urol Int., 2009; 82: 183-186.
PEYVASTEH M, et al. Avaliação das complicações e eficácia do método snodgraft no tratamento de hipospádia distal ou diáfise. Rev Mund Cir Plast., 2022; 11(1): 38-43.
RAMPERSAD R, et al. Foreskin reconstruction vs circumcision in distal hypospadias. Pediatr Surg Int., 2017; 33: 1131–1137.
SILAY MS, et al. Are there any benefits of using an inlay graft in the treatment of primary hypospadias in children? A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Pediatr Urol., 2021; 17(3): P303-315.
SNODGRASS W. Tubularized, incised plate urethroplasty for distal hypospadias. J Urol., 1994; 151(2): 464-5.
SNODGRASS W, et al. Foreskin reconstruction does not increase urethroplasty or skin complications after distal TIP hypospadias repair. J Pediatr Urol., 2013; 9(4): 401-6.
SHOOR G, et al. Outcomes of preputioplasty in patients undergoing TIP urethroplasty (tubularization of incised urethral plate) for distal and mid penile hypospadias. J Pediatr Urol., 2020; 16 (3): 319.
VAN DEN DUNGEN IAL, et al. Comparison of preputioplasty and circumcision in distal hypospadias correction: long-term follow-up. J Pediatr Urol. 2019;15 (1): 47.e1-47. e9.
ZAONTZ M. The GAP (glans approximation procedure) for glanular/coronal hypospadias. The Journal of urology, 1989; 141: 359-61.