Introduction: Glans dehiscence (GD) is reportedly a common complication after proximal hypospadias repairs. However, the need for surgical correction is controversial. The aim of this study was to assess awareness, risk factors, and outcome of GD in post-pubertal patients. The agreement with surgeon assessment was also evaluated. Methods: The design was retrospective. All consecutive patients treated for proximal hypospadias between 2000 and 2011 were included. The presence of GD was self-reported, and the participants could optionally upload a photograph for surgeon assessment. Cosmetic and functional outcomes were assessed by validated questionnaires (HOSE, PPPS, KINDL®, IIEF-5). Results were compared between patients with and without GD. Results: Of 219 patients, 34 (16%) participated. Fourteen of them (41%) self-reported GD. Eighteen patients (8%) also uploaded a photograph and, in ten of them (56%), the surgeon noted the presence of GD with poor agreement [k = − 0.444 (95 CI − 0.856 to − 0.033)] with patient report. Patients self-reporting GD had had more frequently a penile curvature at diagnosis (12/14 = 86%, p = 0.01), and had undergone a single-staged repair (100% vs. 65%, p = 0.03). No difference was found in cosmetic and functional outcomes. Results were similar also comparing groups with and without GD as assessed by the surgeon. Conclusion: GD was a common finding after severe hypospadias repair. It was more common in case of surgeon assessment with poor agreement between patients and surgeons. GD did not prove to have clear clinical implications. Therefore, in our opinion, surgical repair of GD should be recommended only on patients request.
Glans dehiscence after severe hypospadias repair. Is it a real complication? Clues from a study in post-pubertal patients
Ghidini F.;Castagnetti M.
2023
Abstract
Introduction: Glans dehiscence (GD) is reportedly a common complication after proximal hypospadias repairs. However, the need for surgical correction is controversial. The aim of this study was to assess awareness, risk factors, and outcome of GD in post-pubertal patients. The agreement with surgeon assessment was also evaluated. Methods: The design was retrospective. All consecutive patients treated for proximal hypospadias between 2000 and 2011 were included. The presence of GD was self-reported, and the participants could optionally upload a photograph for surgeon assessment. Cosmetic and functional outcomes were assessed by validated questionnaires (HOSE, PPPS, KINDL®, IIEF-5). Results were compared between patients with and without GD. Results: Of 219 patients, 34 (16%) participated. Fourteen of them (41%) self-reported GD. Eighteen patients (8%) also uploaded a photograph and, in ten of them (56%), the surgeon noted the presence of GD with poor agreement [k = − 0.444 (95 CI − 0.856 to − 0.033)] with patient report. Patients self-reporting GD had had more frequently a penile curvature at diagnosis (12/14 = 86%, p = 0.01), and had undergone a single-staged repair (100% vs. 65%, p = 0.03). No difference was found in cosmetic and functional outcomes. Results were similar also comparing groups with and without GD as assessed by the surgeon. Conclusion: GD was a common finding after severe hypospadias repair. It was more common in case of surgeon assessment with poor agreement between patients and surgeons. GD did not prove to have clear clinical implications. Therefore, in our opinion, surgical repair of GD should be recommended only on patients request.File | Dimensione | Formato | |
---|---|---|---|
07ccb9e6-5b9a-4868-98f6-7fa5a2f46ab2.pdf
accesso aperto
Tipologia:
Published (publisher's version)
Licenza:
Creative commons
Dimensione
416.77 kB
Formato
Adobe PDF
|
416.77 kB | Adobe PDF | Visualizza/Apri |
Pubblicazioni consigliate
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.