Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Pediatric Surgery International 10/2017

01-10-2017 | Original Article

Foreskin reconstruction vs circumcision in distal hypospadias

Authors: Rajay Rampersad, Yoke Lin Nyo, John Hutson, Mike O’Brien, Yves Heloury

Published in: Pediatric Surgery International | Issue 10/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of the study was to determine if there were differences in the complication rates between foreskin reconstruction (FR) and circumcision (CIRC) in distal hypospadias repairs. The primary outcomes were urethrocutaneous fistula (UF) and dehiscence.

Methods

The data of distal hypospadias operated between 2005 and 2013 were retrospectively reviewed. The inclusion criteria were any distal hypospadias repair that required an urethroplasty. The exclusion criteria were follow-up <1 year, redo procedures, chordee greater than 20°, and incomplete data. Univariate and multivariate analysis was performed on the results.

Results

213 patients were included (95 FR and 118 CIRC). The 2 groups were comparable for age at surgery 19.32 months in FR and 14.25 months in CIRC. Mathieu repair was more common in FR (47/95–49.47%) than in CIRC (45/118–38.14%). The total subsequent procedures required were 23 in FR and 57 in CIRC. The incidence of UF was 6.3% (6/95) in FR and 27.1% (32/118) in CIRC (p < 0.001, OR 5.52, 95% CI 2.2–13.9). Complete dehiscence rates were 3.16% (3/95) FR vs 11.02% (13/118) for CIRC (p = 0.037, OR 3.8, 95% CI 1.05–13.74). The incidence of patients requiring reoperation was 18.9% (18/95) in FR versus 45.8% (54/118) in CIRC (p < 0.001, OR 3.61, 95% CI 1.93–6.76).

Conclusions

Foreskin Reconstruction conferred a significantly lower rate of complications, particularly the UF rate, dehiscence rate, and number of patients that required reoperation. Our rate of complications in the CIRC group is much higher than other published data.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Na AF, Tanny SPT, Hutson JM (2015) Circumcision: is it worth it for 21st-century Australian boys? J Paed Child Health 51(6):580–583CrossRef Na AF, Tanny SPT, Hutson JM (2015) Circumcision: is it worth it for 21st-century Australian boys? J Paed Child Health 51(6):580–583CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Snodgrass W, Dajusta D, Villanueva C, Bush N (2013) Foreskin reconstruction does not increase urethroplasty or skin complications after distal TIP hypospadias repair. J Pediatr Urol 9:401–408CrossRefPubMed Snodgrass W, Dajusta D, Villanueva C, Bush N (2013) Foreskin reconstruction does not increase urethroplasty or skin complications after distal TIP hypospadias repair. J Pediatr Urol 9:401–408CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference ElGanainy EO, Hameed DA, Abdelsalam YM, Abdelaziz MA (2012) Prepuce preserving versus conventional Mathieu urethroplasty for distal hypospadias—a prospective randomized study. J Pediatr Urol 8:264–267CrossRefPubMed ElGanainy EO, Hameed DA, Abdelsalam YM, Abdelaziz MA (2012) Prepuce preserving versus conventional Mathieu urethroplasty for distal hypospadias—a prospective randomized study. J Pediatr Urol 8:264–267CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Suoub M, Dave S, El-Hout Y, Braga LH, Farhat WA (2008) Distal hypospadias repair with or without foreskin reconstruction: a single-surgeon experience. J Pediatr Urol 4:377–380CrossRefPubMed Suoub M, Dave S, El-Hout Y, Braga LH, Farhat WA (2008) Distal hypospadias repair with or without foreskin reconstruction: a single-surgeon experience. J Pediatr Urol 4:377–380CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Klijn AJ, Dik P, De Jong TPVM (2001) Results of preputial reconstruction in 77 boys with distal hypospadias. J Urol 165:1255–1257CrossRefPubMed Klijn AJ, Dik P, De Jong TPVM (2001) Results of preputial reconstruction in 77 boys with distal hypospadias. J Urol 165:1255–1257CrossRefPubMed
6.
7.
go back to reference Antao B, Lansdale N, Roberts J, Mackinnon E (2007) Factors affecting the outcome of foreskin reconstruction in hypospadias surgery. J Pediatr Urol 3:127–131CrossRefPubMed Antao B, Lansdale N, Roberts J, Mackinnon E (2007) Factors affecting the outcome of foreskin reconstruction in hypospadias surgery. J Pediatr Urol 3:127–131CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Esposito C, Savanelli A, Escolino M, Giurin I, Iaquinto M, Alicchio F et al (2014) Preputioplasty associated with urethroplasty for correction of distal hypospadias: a prospective study and proposition for a new objective scoring system for evaluation of esthetic and functional outcome. J Pediatr Urol 10:294–299CrossRefPubMed Esposito C, Savanelli A, Escolino M, Giurin I, Iaquinto M, Alicchio F et al (2014) Preputioplasty associated with urethroplasty for correction of distal hypospadias: a prospective study and proposition for a new objective scoring system for evaluation of esthetic and functional outcome. J Pediatr Urol 10:294–299CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Wang F, Xu Y, Zhong H (2013) Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing the perimeatal-based flap and tubularized incised-plate techniques for primary hypospadias repair. Pediatr Surg Int 29:811–821CrossRefPubMed Wang F, Xu Y, Zhong H (2013) Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing the perimeatal-based flap and tubularized incised-plate techniques for primary hypospadias repair. Pediatr Surg Int 29:811–821CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Snodgrass W, Bush N, Cost N (2010) Tubularized incised plate hypospadias repair for distal hypospadias. J Pediatr Urology 6(4):408–413CrossRef Snodgrass W, Bush N, Cost N (2010) Tubularized incised plate hypospadias repair for distal hypospadias. J Pediatr Urology 6(4):408–413CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Gapany C, Grasset N, Tercier S, Pascal R, Frey P, Meyrat BJ (2007) A lower fistula rate in hypospadias surgery. J Pediatr Urol 3(5):395–397CrossRefPubMed Gapany C, Grasset N, Tercier S, Pascal R, Frey P, Meyrat BJ (2007) A lower fistula rate in hypospadias surgery. J Pediatr Urol 3(5):395–397CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference van der Toorn F, de Jong TPVM, de Gier RPE, Callewaert PRH, van der Horst EHJR, Steffens MG et al (2013) Introducing the HOPE (hypospadias objective penile evaluation)-score: a validation study of an objective scoring system for evaluating cosmetic appearance in hypospadias patients. J Pediatr Urol 9:1006–1017CrossRefPubMed van der Toorn F, de Jong TPVM, de Gier RPE, Callewaert PRH, van der Horst EHJR, Steffens MG et al (2013) Introducing the HOPE (hypospadias objective penile evaluation)-score: a validation study of an objective scoring system for evaluating cosmetic appearance in hypospadias patients. J Pediatr Urol 9:1006–1017CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Foreskin reconstruction vs circumcision in distal hypospadias
Authors
Rajay Rampersad
Yoke Lin Nyo
John Hutson
Mike O’Brien
Yves Heloury
Publication date
01-10-2017
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Pediatric Surgery International / Issue 10/2017
Print ISSN: 0179-0358
Electronic ISSN: 1437-9813
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00383-017-4151-y

Other articles of this Issue 10/2017

Pediatric Surgery International 10/2017 Go to the issue