Journal of pediatric urology · 2026
Glans dehiscence meatal retraction following hypospadias repair - V-GUD has superior results compared to G-TIP repair.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Babu Ramesh, Shajini Nirmalan
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: We hereby report ventral flap aided glans urethral disassembly (V- GUD), for a retracted coronal meatus due to glans dehiscence after a failed hypospadias repair.
METHODS/TECHNIQUE: Children with subcoronal meatus following failed hypospadias repair underwent G-TIP during 2015-2019 and V-GUD during 2020-2024. For V-GUD perimeatal skin flap was marked; a stay stitch was placed to aid in distal urethral mobilisation; glans wings were raised; glans was further divided at 12 O' clock position; the mobilised urethra was anchored and glansplasty was done using 6-0 PDS sutures. An 8Fr silastic Foley's catheter was left indwelling for 7 days. Dressing and catheter were kept for 7-days.
RESULTS: During the study 51 children underwent G-TIP while 46 underwent V-GUD. In G-TIP group there were 10/51 complications (4 fistulae, 4 stenosis and 2 glans dehiscence). This was significantly higher (Fishers p = 0.03) than that found in V-GUD group (2/46; 2 stenosis). Uroflowmetry showed bell-shaped curve in 42/46 who underwent V-GUD while only in 22/51 who underwent G-TIP (p = 0.001). Cosmesis was not significantly different between groups.
CONCLUSION: V-GUD hypospadias repair is useful in advancing a retracted coronal meatus due to glans dehiscence after a failed hypospadias repair. Larger comparative studies with longer follow-up are warranted.
IRB APPROVAL: IEC-NI/24/Feb/92/41.
METHODS/TECHNIQUE: Children with subcoronal meatus following failed hypospadias repair underwent G-TIP during 2015-2019 and V-GUD during 2020-2024. For V-GUD perimeatal skin flap was marked; a stay stitch was placed to aid in distal urethral mobilisation; glans wings were raised; glans was further divided at 12 O' clock position; the mobilised urethra was anchored and glansplasty was done using 6-0 PDS sutures. An 8Fr silastic Foley's catheter was left indwelling for 7 days. Dressing and catheter were kept for 7-days.
RESULTS: During the study 51 children underwent G-TIP while 46 underwent V-GUD. In G-TIP group there were 10/51 complications (4 fistulae, 4 stenosis and 2 glans dehiscence). This was significantly higher (Fishers p = 0.03) than that found in V-GUD group (2/46; 2 stenosis). Uroflowmetry showed bell-shaped curve in 42/46 who underwent V-GUD while only in 22/51 who underwent G-TIP (p = 0.001). Cosmesis was not significantly different between groups.
CONCLUSION: V-GUD hypospadias repair is useful in advancing a retracted coronal meatus due to glans dehiscence after a failed hypospadias repair. Larger comparative studies with longer follow-up are warranted.
IRB APPROVAL: IEC-NI/24/Feb/92/41.