Evaluation of the clinical efficacy of urethroplasty after failed hypospadias repair


Cite item

Full Text

Open Access Open Access
Restricted Access Access granted
Restricted Access Subscription or Fee Access

Abstract

Background. Evaluation of surgical treatment of hypospadias is one of the most controversial problem in urology, considering a lack of continuity in the management of these patients between pediatric andrologists and general urologists. Patients who undergone to multiple hypospadias repairs remain one of the most difficult categories for reconstructive urethral surgery and urology in general. Materials and methods. The treatment results of 112 adult patients who had complications of previously performed hypospadias repairs were evaluated. The results of repeated procedures were compared in patients, in whom modified balloon urethral catheter (group 1; n=50) or standard Foley catheter (group 2; n=62) was used, respectively. Results. Most patients after surgery assessed the appearance of the penis as “good” (92% in group 1, 77.4% in group 2). In group 1, satisfactory results was seen in 8% of cases and there were no unsatisfactory results, while in group 2, where standard Foley catheter was used, these values were 19.4% and 3.2%, respectively. In group 1, complication rate was lower than in group 2 (10% versus 41.9%; p<0.05). In group 1, there was a significantly higher proportion of patients with a Qmax score of > 18 ml/s (90% versus 74.2%; p<0.05). Conclusions. Repeated procedures in adult men with late complications of surgical treatment of hypospadias are quite effective, although they are accompanied by a rather high complications rate. The use of a new model of the urethral catheter with dilating cuff and an irrigation canal allows to improve treatment results in this category of patients.

Full Text

Restricted Access

About the authors

S. I Gamidov

National Medical Research Center of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Perinatology named after V.I. Kulakov of the Ministry of Health of Russia; I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University of the Ministry of Health of Russia (Sechenov University)

Email: s_gamidov@oparina4.ru

D. Yu Pushkar

A.I. Evdokimov Moscow State University of Medicine and Dentistry of Ministry of Health of Russia

Email: pushkardm@mail.ru

A. O Vasiliev

A.I. Evdokimov Moscow State University of Medicine and Dentistry of Ministry of Health of Russia

Email: alexvasilyev@me.com

A. V Govorov

A.I. Evdokimov Moscow State University of Medicine and Dentistry of Ministry of Health of Russia

Email: dr.govorov@gmail.com

R. N Dusmukhamedov

N.I. Pirogov RNRMU

Email: runisdusmuhamedov@mail.ru

M. G Shneiderman

National Medical Research Center of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Perinatology named after V.I. Kulakov of the Ministry of Health of Russia

Email: innamike@lmi.net

T. V Shatylko

National Medical Research Center of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Perinatology named after V.I. Kulakov of the Ministry of Health of Russia

Email: dialectic.law@gmail.com

N. G Gasanov

National Medical Research Center of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Perinatology named after V.I. Kulakov of the Ministry of Health of Russia

Email: natiqhasan@gmail.com

References

  1. Ardelt P.U., Cederquist M., Schoe«thalerM. et al. The glandular resection and central embedding modification (GRACE) in Duckett and Bracka hypospadias repair. Urol. Int. 2013;90:358-364
  2. Суренков Д.Н., Котов С.В. Рецидивные стриктуры уретры у мужчин. Московская медицина. 2017;2(21):101
  3. Рудин Ю.Э., Марухненко Д.В. Оптимизация пластики уретры при лечении детей с дистальной и среднестволовой гипоспадией. Российский вестник детской хирургии, анестезиологии и реаниматологии. 2015;5(2):20-26
  4. Красулин В.В., Глухов В.П., Хасигов А.В., Ильяш А.В., Поляков А.С. Результаты лечения первичных и осложненных стриктур уретры. Медицинский вестник Башкортостана. 2017;12(3):38-41
  5. Hadidi A.T. Functional urethral obstruction following tubularised incised plate repair of hypospadias. J. Pediatr. Surg. 2013;48(8):1778-1783. doi: 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2012.10.071
  6. Шестаев А.Ю., Протощак В.В., Кушниренко Н.П., Рассветаев А.В., Харитонов Н.Н., Синельников Л.М., Янцев А.А. Оптимизация выбора способа уретропластики при стриктурах передней уретры. Урологические ведомости. 2017;7:127-128
  7. Liu B., Wang D., Yang Z., Tang Y., Li Y., Chen W. Application of buccal mucosa with Snodgrass procedure for repair of hypospadias. Zhongguo Xiu Fu Chong Jian Wai Ke Za Zhi. 2018;32(1):51-54. doi: 10.7507/1002-1892.201709093.
  8. Baradaran N., Hampson L.A., Edwards T.C., Voelzke B.B., Breyer B.N. Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Urethral Reconstruction. Curr Urol Rep. 2018;19(7):48. doi: 10.1007/s11934-018-0797-9.
  9. Jones B.C., O’Brien M., Chase J. et al. Early hypospadias surgery may lead to a better long-term psychosexual outcome. J. Urol. 2009; 182:1744- 1749.
  10. Kraft K.H., Shukla A.R., Canning D.A. Hypospadias. Urol. Clin. North Am. 2010;37:167-181.
  11. Mazaheri T., Rad M.V., Fareghi M., Kajbafzadeh A.M. Multiple hypoplastic duplicated urethral hydrodistension and simple end-to-end anastomosis to penoscrotal hypospadias: a novel technique. Int. Urol. Nephrol. 2014;46(9):1729-1731.
  12. Stanasel I., Le H.K., Bilgutay A. et al. Complications following Staged Hypospadias Repair Using Transposed Preputial Skin Flaps. J. Urol. 2015;194(2):512-516.

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML

This website uses cookies

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

About Cookies