Application of the Mathieu combined tunnel technique for repairing glans dehiscence after failed hypospadias repair / 亚洲男科学杂志(英文版)

Repairing glans dehiscence after failed hypospadias repair is challenging for pediatric surgeons. Here, we introduced and evaluated a newly modified Mathieu technique, Mathieu combined tunnel (MCT), which involves multiple custom-designed flaps for the shortage of flap source material after repeated operations; we also constructed a tunnel to avoid the glans incision that may carry new risks of dehiscence. This retrospective study included 26 patients who were consecutively admitted to the First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University (Guangzhou, China) for glans dehiscence repair after failed hypospadias repair from October 2014 to October 2020; sixteen patients underwent surgery using the MCT (MCT group) and ten patients underwent surgery using the tubularized incised plate (TIP) technique (TIP group). The operative time, blood loss, postoperative complications, normal urethral meatus rate, success rate, and Hypospadias Objective Penile Evaluation (HOPE) score were compared between the two groups. The MCT group achieved an overall satisfactory penile appearance and voiding function, with a higher rate of normal urethral meatus (15/16, 93.8%) and a lower rate of glans dehiscence (1/16, 6.2%), compared with the TIP group (70.0% and 30.0%, respectively). However, these differences were not statistically significant, possibly because of the limited number of patients (all P > 0.05). Mean postoperative HOPE scores were similar in the MCT group (mean ± standard deviation: 8.83 ± 0. 89) and TIP group (8.94 ± 0.57) (P > 0.05). No significant differences were found between the two groups in terms of blood loss and success rate, nor in the rates of various complications (e.g., fistula, urethral stricture, and glans dehiscence). In conclusion, the MCT technique appears to be feasible and reliable for repairing glans dehiscence after failed hypospadias repair.

Foley catheter versus urethral stent plus gastric tube for urine drainage following urethroplasty / 中华男科学杂志

<p><b>OBJECTIVE</b>To compare the advantages and disadvantages of the Foley catheter draining method versus the urethral stent plus gastric tube draining method for urine drainage following urethroplasty for hypospadias.</p><p><b>METHODS</b>We retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of 361 cases of hypospadias treated by urethroplasty. After operation, 91 of the cases received urine drainage with the Foley catheter (group A) and 270 with a urethral stent plus a gastric tube (group B). We compared the incidence rates of bladder irritation, fistula, urethral stricture, and urethral diverticulum between the two groups of patients.</p><p><b>RESULTS</b>No statistically significant differences were found between groups A and B in the incidences of bladder irritation (9.89% vs 10.70%, P > 0.05) and urethral diverticulum (1.09% vs 2.22%, P > 0.05). The incidence rate of fistula was markedly higher in group A than in B (20.80% vs 13.30%, P < 0.05), and so was that of urethral stricture (10.90% vs 5.55%, P < 0.05).</p><p><b>CONCLUSION</b>The urethral stent plus gastric tube draining method is more effective than the Foley catheter draining method for urine drainage following urethroplasty.</p>