Evaluation of Factors Affecting Surgical Success in Megameatus Intact Prepuce Cases

被引:1
|
作者
Bagci, Uygar [1 ]
Tekin, Ali [1 ]
Tiryaki, Sibel [1 ]
Ulman, Ibrahim [1 ]
机构
[1] Ege Univ, Fac Med, Dept Pediat Urol, Izmir, Turkiye
关键词
Megameatus intact prepuce; hypospadias; circumcision; meatoplasty; urethroplasty; ANTERIOR HYPOSPADIAS; CIRCUMCISION; REPAIR; VARIANT;
D O I
10.4274/jpr.galenos.2024.14041
中图分类号
R72 [儿科学];
学科分类号
100202 ;
摘要
Aim: Megameatus intact prepuce (MIP) is a rare form of hypospadias. Different meatal/urethral advancement and urethroplasty techniques are used in the treatment of MIP. This study aimed to evaluate the success of various surgical methods for the treatment of MIP. Materials and Methods: Patients who underwent circumcision, meatoplasty, and urethroplasty techniques due to MIP between 2011 and 2022 were included in this study. Surgical success was accepted as the absence of complications and/or the need for additional treatment. The statistical significance level was accepted as 0.05. Results: This study included 100 patients with a median age of 33 months. Of these, 94 patients were admitted to our center with untreated MIP, 5 presented after circumcision and 1 after MIP repair in another center. The urethral stent placement rate was significantly lower in those patients with a glanular meatus location as in patients who underwent the meatoplasty technique (p<0.001). The complication rate was significantly higher in the Duplay with Posterior Meatal Incision (DPMI) technique when compared to the other techniques (p=0.033). There were no significant differences between the meatoplasty, Duplay urethroplasty, Pyramid urethroplasty, and DPMI techniques in terms of the need for additional surgical intervention (p=0.102). None of the five previously circumcised patients who underwent Duplay urethroplasty experienced any complications. When the complication rates were compared between the patient group presenting with untreated MIP and those who underwent Duplay urethroplasty, no statistically significant difference was detected (p=0.534). Conclusion: According to the conclusions of this MIP series, prior circumcision or the preference for any specific surgical technique that preserves the urethral plate did not affect the success of MIP treatment.
引用
收藏
页码:123 / 128
页数:6
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Evaluation of Factors Affecting Surgical Success in Megameatus Intact Prepuce Cases (Vol 11, pg 123, 2024)
    Bagci, U.
    Tekin, A.
    Birol, S. Tiryaki
    Ulman, I
    JOURNAL OF PEDIATRIC RESEARCH, 2024, 11 (03) : 189 - 189
  • [2] Diagnosis and Treatment of Hypospadias With Megameatus Intact Prepuce
    Duan, Shou Xing
    Li, Jianhong
    Jiang, Xuewu
    Zhang, Xuan
    Ou, Wenhui
    Fu, Maxian
    Chen, Kaihong
    Zheng, Lian
    Ma, Shu Hua
    FRONTIERS IN PEDIATRICS, 2020, 8
  • [3] Megameatus intact prepuce: a systematic review of surgical techniques and long-term outcomes
    Elawad, Abubakr
    Haroon, Ahmed
    Ahmad, Jamil
    Alsbeti, Jude
    Cherigui, Sami
    Arar, Seem
    Chandrasekharam, V. V. S.
    Abbas, Tariq O.
    PEDIATRIC SURGERY INTERNATIONAL, 2024, 41 (01)
  • [5] The Megameatus, Intact Prepuce Variant of Hypospadias: Use of the Inframeatal Vascularized Flap for Surgical Correction
    Cendron, Marc
    FRONTIERS IN PEDIATRICS, 2018, 6
  • [6] TECHNICAL CHALLENGE OF THE MEGAMEATUS INTACT PREPUCE HYPOSPADIAS VARIANT - THE PYRAMID PROCEDURE
    DUCKETT, JW
    KEATING, MA
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 1989, 141 (06): : 1407 - 1409
  • [7] Pseudo-iatrogenic hypospadias: The megameatus intact-prepuce hypospadias variant
    Peretz, D
    Westreich, M
    PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY, 2003, 111 (03) : 1182 - 1185
  • [8] Dorsal penile curvature with megameatus intact prepuce hypospadias and "septum glandis" deficiency
    Ozbey, Huseyin
    JOURNAL OF PEDIATRIC UROLOGY, 2021, 17 (01) : 602 - 602
  • [9] Megameatus intact prepuce hypospadias variant: Application of tubularized incised plate urethroplasty
    Bar-Yosef, Y
    Binyamini, J
    Mullerad, M
    Matzkin, H
    Ben-Chaim, J
    UROLOGY, 2005, 66 (04) : 861 - 864