Complications of surgical treatment of hypospadia


Cite item

Full Text

Abstract

127 new cases of hypospadia were treated in 1980-2002. A total
of 348 operations including urethroplasty by Duplay and Cecil were
made. 78 of the operations were followed by complications out of
which 26 were corrected in the postoperative period and had no effect
on the treatment results. The first stage of surgical correction of hypospadia
(89 operations) brought complications in 13.48% cases. Recurrent
distortion of the cavernous bodies was most typical complication
at this stage. In most cases development of scarry deformation
was due to inflammatory changes early after surgery. Derivatives of
prednisolone proved effective in the treatment of hypertrophic scars.
This complication correlated with skin plastic repair (longitudinal suturing
or creation of oncoming triangular flaps) to correct the defect.
The second stage of hypospadia surgery was urethroplasty made in
196 cases. It was accompanied with complications in 13.25 patients.
Fistulas of newly-created urethra (11.73%) were the most typical and
frequent complication. The number of postoperative complications
varied greatly depending on the disease form and method of urethral
reconstruction. Cecil urethroplasty brought complications in 7.94%
cases. Efficacy of neourethra creation by Duplay varied greatly depending
on the length of the created neourethral portion and the
number of local skin resourses (8-33-83.33% complications).

About the authors

D V Romanov

I A Korolkov

References

  1. Долецкий С. Я., Королькова И. А. Гипоспадии, гермафродитизм, вопросы определения пола. В кн.: Долецкий С. Я.,Исаков Ю. Ф. (ред.) Детская хирургия (руководство для врачей). М.: Медицина; 1970; ч. 2: 877-889.
  2. Retik A. В., Atala A. Complications of hypospadias repair. Urol.Clin. N. Am. 2002; 29 (2): 329-339.
  3. Пытель А. Я. Руководство по клинической урологии. М.: Медицина; 1969.
  4. Терещенко А. В. Актуальные вопросы диагностики и хирургической коррекции пороков развития у детей. В кн.: Урология. Киев; 1977; вып. 10: 24-31.
  5. Лопаткин N. А., Люлько А. В. Аномалии мочеполовой системы. Киев: Здоровье; 1987. 263-343.
  6. Трапезникова М. Ф., Соболевский А. Б., Уренков С. Б. Сочетанные аномалии органов мочевой системы. В кн.: Актуальные проблемы медицины. М.: МОНИКИ; 1993. 52-55.
  7. Hussain N., Chaghtai A., Herndon С. D. et al. Hypospadias and early gestation growth restriction in infants. Pediatrics 2002; 109 (3): 473-478.
  8. Савченко Н. Е. Гипоспадия и ее роль в нарушениях копулятивной и генеративной функций у мужчин. В кн.: Актуальные вопросы андрологии. Ростов; 1986. 19-24.
  9. Русаков В. И. Лечение гипоспадии / Отв. ред. Тараканов В. П. Ростов н/Д: Северо-Кавказ. науч. центр, высш. школы; 1988.
  10. Пугачев А. Г. Гипоспадия у детей: Очерки по детской урологии. М.; 1993. 142-144.
  11. SandbergD. E., Meyer-Bahlburg H. F., Hensle Т. W. et al. Psychosocial adaptation of middle childhood boys with hypospadias after genital surgery. J. Pediatr. Psychol. 2001; 26 (8): 465-475.
  12. Mondaini N., Ponchietti R., Bonafe M. et al. Hypospadias: incidence and effects on psychosexual development as evaluated with the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory test in a sample of 11,649 young Italian men. Urol. Int. 2002; 68 (2): 81-85.
  13. Королькова И. А. К оперативному лечению гипоспадии. В кн.: Вопросы хирургии детского возраста. М.; 1963. 181- 194.
  14. Baskin L. Hypospadias: a critical analysis of cosmetic outcomes using photography. Br. J. Urol. Int. 2001; 87 (6): 534-539.
  15. Кожабеков Б. С., Машибаев К. А., Ешмухабетов С. Н., Надиров К. Н. Сравнительный анализ методов уретропластики при гипоспадии у детей. Здравоохр. Казахстана. 1989; 12: 18-20.
  16. Cigna R. M., Chiaramonte С., Italiano F., Cataliotti F. Tratment of complications in hypospadias surgery: modern advancement. Minerva Urol. Nefrol. 2002; 54 (2): 107-111.
  17. Савченко Н. Е. Гипоспадия и ее лечение / Под ред. Т. Е. Гнилорыбова. - Минск: Изд-во АН БССР; 1962.
  18. Emir L., Germiyanogiu С., Erol D. Onlay island flap urethroplasty: a comparative analysis of primary versus reoperative cases. Urology 2003; 61 (1): 216-219.
  19. Samuel M., Capps S., Worth A. Proximal hypospadias. Comparative evaluation of staged urethroplasty (modified Thiersch Duplay followed by Mathieu) and sungle stage on-lay island flap repair. Eur. Urol. 2001; 40 (4): 463-468.
  20. Ferro F., Zaccara A., Spagnoli A. et al. Skin graft for 2-stage treatment of severe hypospadias: back to the future? J. Urol. (Baltimore) 2002; 168 (4, pt 2): 1730-1733.
  21. Senkul Т., Karademir K., Iseri С. et al. Hypospadias in adults. Urology 2002; 60 (6): 1059-1062.
  22. Gallo Rolania F. J. Analysis of 109 urethroplasties for hypospadias. Arch. Esp. Urol. 2001; 54 (2): 145-149.
  23. Arda I. S., Mahmutoglu M. Urethral catheterization in hypospadias surgery: Should the device enter the bladder or be made a urethral stent? J. Pediatr. Surg. 2001; 36 (12): 1829-1831.

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML

Copyright (c) 2004 Bionika Media

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies