PROKSİMAL VE DİSTAL HİPOSPADİAS OLGULARINDA FARKLI CERRAHİ YÖNTEMLERİN ETKİNLİKLERİNİN KARŞILAŞTIRILMASI

Year 2012, Volume: 20 Issue: 2, 5 - 9, 01.08.2012

Caferi Tayyar Selçuk Kadir Aksoy Sebat Karamürsel Birol Civelek Selim Çelebioğlu

Abstract

Giriş: Hipospadias yaklaşık her 200-300 erkek doğumda bir görülen, üretral meatusun normal anatomik pozisyonundan daha proksimalde yerleşimi ile karakterize bir anomalidir. Hipospadias onarımı için tüm dünyada geçerli tek bir yöntem yoktur. Çalışmamızda retrospektif olarak 75 vakalık bir seride, lokalizasyonlara göre kullanılan yöntemler ve bunların sonuçlarının karşılaştırılması amaçlandı. Gereç ve Yöntem: Kliniğimize 2002 – 2008 tarihleri arasında başvuran 75 primer hipospadias olgusuna cerrahi onarım uygulandı. Hastaların yaş aralığı 8 – 140 ay ve ortalama yaş 61.8 ay idi. Distal hipospadias olgularında üretral ilerletme (n=27) ve Mathieu tekniği (n=17) ile onarım uygulandı. Proksimal hipospadias olgularında onlay prepüsial ada flep (n=8), Asopa tekniği (n=19) ve deri grefti üretroplasti (n=4) yöntemleri ile onarım uygulandı. Bulgular: Ortalama 54.6 ay (29 - 92) süre ile takip edilen olgularda tatminkar bir onarım sağlandı. Olguların hiçbirinde enfeksiyon, hematom, yara ayrılması ve divertikül tablosu ile karşılaşılmadı. Takiplerde %8 fistül ve %6.6 meatal stenoz olmak üzere toplam %14.6 komplikasyon oranı gözlendi. Komplikasyon oranı, proksimal hipospadias olgularında onlay prepüsial ada flep yönteminde (%25) ve distal hipospadias olgularında ürteral ilerletme tekniğinde (%3.7) en az gözlendi. Sonuçlar: Çalışmamızda, proksimal hipospadias olgularında onlay prepüsial ada flep yöntemi ve distal hipospadias olgularında ürteral ilerletme tekniği daha başarılı bulundu.

Keywords

Hipospadias, üretral ilerletme, onlay prepüsial ada flep, Asopa, Mathieu

COMPARISON OF THE EFFECT OF DIFFERENT SURGICAL METHODS IN PROXIMAL AND DISTAL HYPOSPADIAS

Abstract

Introduction: Hypospadias is a congenital anomaly observed in approximately one in every 200 to 300 male births. To date, there is no method universally agreed upon for repair of hypospadias. The aim of our study is to retrospectively compare the methods chosen according to the location of the meatus and their outcomes in a group of 75 patients. Material and Methods: Between 2002 and 2008, seventy-five patients with primary hypospadias underwent surgical repairs. The age range of the patients was between 8 and 140 months, and the mean age was 61.8 months. The repairs in the patients with distal hypospadias were performed through urethral advancement (n=27) and the Mathieu technique (n=17). The repairs in the patients with proximal hypospadias were performed with onlay preputial island flap urethroplasty (n=8), the Asopa technique (n=19), and skin graft urethroplasty (n=4). Results: Patients where a satisfactory reconstruction was achieved were followed up for an average period of 54.6 months (range: 29–92 months). None of the patients developed any infection, hematoma, wound dehiscence or diverticula. During the follow-up period, the total complication rate was 14.6%, of which 8% were fistulae and 6.6% were meatal stenoses. The lowest complication rates were observed with the onlay preputial island flap method (25%) applied in patients with proximal hypospadias and with the urethral advancement (3.7%) applied in patients of distal hypospadias. Conclusion: In our study, the onlay preputial island flap urethroplasty in patients with proximal hypospadias and the urethral advancement in patients with distal hypospadias were found to be the most effective techniques.

Keywords

Hypospadias, urethral advancement, onlay preputial island flap, Asopa, Mathieu

References

• Aminsharifi A, Taddayun A, Assadolahpoor A, Khezri A. Combined 1.
• use of Mathieu procedure with plate incision for hypospadias
• repair: a randomized clinical trial. Urology. 2008;72(2):305-8.
• Baran CN, Tiftikcioglu YO, Ozdemir R, Baran NK. What is 2.
• new in the treatment of hypospadias? Plast Reconstr Surg. 2004;114(3):743-52.
• Baskin LS, Ebbers MB. Hypospadias: anatomy, etiology, and 3.
• technique. J Pediatr Surg. 2006;41(3):463-72.
• Ratan SK, Ratan J, Rattan KN. Is tubularization of the mobi- 4.
• lized urethral plate a better alternative to tubularization of an
• incised urethral plate for hypospadias repair? Pediatr Surg Int. 2009;25(2):185-90.
• Sensöz O, Ortak T, Baran CN, Unlü RE. A new technique for distal 5.
• hypospadias repair: advancement of a distally deepithelialized
• urethrocutaneous flap. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2003;112(3):840-3.
• Elsayed ER, Khalil S, Samad KA, Abdalla MMH. Evaluation of dis- 6.
• tally folded onlay flap in repair of distal penile hypospadias. J Pediatr Urol. 2011;
• Belman AB. Hypospadias update. Urology. 1997;49(2):166- 72. 7.
• Beck C. Hypospadias and its treatment. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 8. 1917;24:511–515
• Mathieu P. Traitement en un temps de I’hypospade balnique et 9.
• juxta-balanique. J Chir. 1932;39:481-84 10. Asopa R, Asopa HS. One stage repair of hypospadias using dou
• ble island preputial skin tube. Indian J Urol. 1984;1:41 11. Elder JS, Duckett JW, Snyder HM. Onlay island flap in the repair
• of mid and distal penile hypospadias without chordee. J Urol.
• ;138:376-9. 12. Ghali AM. Hypospadias repair by skin flaps: a comparison
• of onlay preputial island flaps with either Mathieu’s meatal
• based or Duckett’s tubularized preputial flaps. BJU Int.
• ;83(9):1032-8. 13. Devine, C. J., Jr., and Horton, C. E. A one stage hypospadias re
• pair. J. Urol. 85: 66, 1961. 14. Horton, C. E., Devine, C. J., Jr., Baran, N. K. Pictorial history of
• hypospadias repair techniques. In C. E. Horton (Ed.), Plastic and
• Reconstructive Surgery of the Genital Area, 1st Ed. Boston; Little,
• Brown, 1973. P. 237 15. Duckett, J. W., Jr. Hypospadias. In J. Y. Gillenwater, J. T. Grayhack,
• S. S. Howards, and J. W. Duckett (Eds.), Adult and Pediatric Urol
• ogy, Vol. 2, 2nd Ed. St. Louis, Mo.: Mosby-Year Book, 1991. Pp. 2103–2140. 16. Devine CJ, Allen TD, Kelalis PP, Hodgson NB, Duckett JW, Horton
• CE. Hypospadias. Dial Ped Urol. 1978;1:2-4. 17. Wilkinson DJ, Farrelly P, Kenny SE. Outcomes in distal hypospa- dias: A systematic review of the Mathieu and tubularized incised plate repairs. J Pediatr Urol. 2010 Dec 13. [Epub ahead of print] 18. Karamürsel S, Celebioğlu S. Urethral advancement for recur- rent distal hypospadias fistula treatment. Ann Plast Surg.
• ;56(4):423-6. 19. Atala A. Urethral mobilization and advancement for midshaft to
• distal hypospadias. J Urol. 2002;168(4):1738-41. 20. Oswald J, Körner I, Riccabona M. Comparison of the perimeatal
• based flap (Mathieu) and the tubularized incised-plate ure
• throplasty (Snodgrass) in primary distal hypospadias. BJU Int.
• ;85(6):725-7. 21. Roberts J. Hypospadias surgery Past, present and future. Curr
• Opin Urol. 2010;20(6):483-9. 22. Cakan M, Yalçinkaya F, Demirel F, Aldemir M, Altuğ U. The mid
• term success rates of tubularized incised plate urethroplasty in
• reoperative patients with distal or midpenile hypospadias. Pe
• diatr Surg Int. 2005;21(12):973-6. 23. Holland AJ, Smith GH: Effect of the depth and width of the ure
• thra plate on tubularized incised plate urethroplasty. J Urol.
• ;164(2):489-491. 24. Seyhan T, Şahin C. Distal Hipospadias Onarimlarinda Tipu (Tubül
• arize İnsize Plat Üretroplasti: Snodgrass) Yöntemi Sonuçlarimiz:
• Yillik Deneyim. Turk Plast Surg. 2005;13(1):14-18 25. Baran CN, Tiftikçioğlu YO, Karacaoğlu E, Koçer U, Baran NK.
• Hipospadias cerrahi tedavisinde üretra rekonstrüksiyonu
• için “kordi - uretral plate” üretra oluşturabilir mi?, veya penis
• kurvatürüne neden olan kordi dokusu çıkarılmalı mı ? Turk Plast
• Surg. 2008;16(2):93-105. 26. Harrison DH, Grobbelaar AO. Urethral advancement and glanu
• loplasty (UGPI): A modification of the MAGPI procedure for dis
• tal hypospadias. Br. J.Plast. Surg. 1997;50(3):206-11. 27. Catti M, Lottmann H, Babloyan S, Lortat-Jacob S, Mouriquand P.
• Original Koyanagi urethroplasty versus modified Hayashi tech
• nique: outcome in 57 patients. J Pediatr Urol. 2009;5(4):300-6. 28. E. de Mattos e Silva, Gorduza DB, Catti M, Valmalle AF, Demède
• D, Hameury F, et al. Outcome of severe hypospadias repair using
• three different techniques. J Pediatr Urol. 2009;5(3):205-11. 29. Wiener JS, Sutherland RW, Roth DR, Gonzales Jr ET. Comparison
• of onlay and tubularized island flap of iner preputial skin for the
• repair of proximal hypospadias. J Urol. 1997;158(3):1172-4. 30. Baskin LS, Duckett JW, Ueoka K, Seibold J, Snyder HM. Changing
• concepts of hypospadias curvature lead to more onlay island
• flap procedures. J Urol. 1994;151(1):191-6. 31. Shedberry-Ross S, Stisser BC, Henderson CG, Rushton HG, Bel
• man AB. Split prepuce in situ onlay hypospadias repair: 17 years
• of experience. J Urol. 2007;178(4):1663-7. 32. Singh BP, Solanki FS, Kapoor R, Dassi V, Kaswan HK, Agrawal V,
• et al. Factors predicting success in hypospadias repair using
• preputial flap with limited pedicle mobilization (Asopa proce
• dure). Urology. 2010;76(1):92-6. 33. Wiener JS, Sutherland RW, Roth DR, Gonzales ET. Comparison of
• onlay and tubularized island flaps of inner preputial skin for the
• repair of proximal hypospadias. J Urol. 1997;158(3):1172-1174. 34. Duckett JW. In: Walsh PC, Gilles RGF, Perlmutter AD, Stamey TA,
• editors. Campbell’s urology. Philadelphia: WB Saunders and Co; 1986. p.1987-9.