Khewkah, I., Al-Hallaq, Y. (2024). Oral Mucosal Graft Versus Inner Preputial Graft in Two Stage Surgical Repair of Proximal Hypospadias; A Comparative Study. , 23(3), 377-383. doi: 10.52573/ipmj.2024.185064
Ihab S. Khewkah; Yousuf M. Al-Hallaq. "Oral Mucosal Graft Versus Inner Preputial Graft in Two Stage Surgical Repair of Proximal Hypospadias; A Comparative Study". , 23, 3, 2024, 377-383. doi: 10.52573/ipmj.2024.185064
Khewkah, I., Al-Hallaq, Y. (2024). 'Oral Mucosal Graft Versus Inner Preputial Graft in Two Stage Surgical Repair of Proximal Hypospadias; A Comparative Study', , 23(3), pp. 377-383. doi: 10.52573/ipmj.2024.185064
Khewkah, I., Al-Hallaq, Y. Oral Mucosal Graft Versus Inner Preputial Graft in Two Stage Surgical Repair of Proximal Hypospadias; A Comparative Study. , 2024; 23(3): 377-383. doi: 10.52573/ipmj.2024.185064

Oral Mucosal Graft Versus Inner Preputial Graft in Two Stage Surgical Repair of Proximal Hypospadias; A Comparative Study

Iraqi Postgraduate Medical Journal
Volume 23, Issue 3, July 2024, Pages 377-383    PDF (2.87 M)
Document Type: Research Paper
DOI: 10.52573/ipmj.2024.185064
Authors
Ihab S. Khewkah* 1; Yousuf M. Al-Hallaq2
1Urologist, Urology Department, Al-Yarmook Teaching Hospital, Baghdad, Iraq.
2Consultant Urologist, Ghazi Al-Hariri Surgical Specialties Teaching Hospital, Medical City, Baghdad, Iraq.
Abstract
BACKGROUND:
Proximal hypospadias is a challenging case for the urologist due to the complexity of this type of hypospadias.  Many surgeons adopting two stage repair for better cosmetic and functional results. The choice of the best graft to take for the repair remains controversial. Thus we are comparing buccal versus preputial grafts for post-operative surgical and histological outcomes.
OBJECTIVE:
To compare the surgical and histological outcome of inner preputial and oral mucosal grafts when used in two-stage proximal hypospadias repair.
METHODS:
Eighteen patients underwent two-stage graft hypospadias repair: first stage, urethral plate transection, graft harvesting and placement done. They were divided into two groups; group A, oral mucosal graft group; group B, inner preputial graft group. Second stage, urethroplasty and glansplasty were done. Patients followed up for 6 months postoperatively after each stage.
RESULTS:
Eighteen patients were included. First stage: group A (8 patients) with mean age 9.7 years, 6 primary and 2 redo cases. The mean operating time was 199 minutes. Group B (10 patients) with mean age 7.4 years, 9 primary and 1 redo case. The mean operating time was 179 minutes (significant statistical difference). The graft take was successful in all cases. None had significant postoperative complication or graft contracture.
Second stage: The mean time to perform second stage was 6.7 months. The second stage was event free in 75% of patients in group A while 12.5% had distal glans dehiscence and 12.5% had small distal fistula. Group B had 80% event free while 20% of patients had distal glans dehiscence (no significant statistical difference).
Histological examination showed good vascularization and minimal fibrosis in both graft types.
CONCLUSION:
The use of these graft types had excellent outcomes in terms of graft take and event free rates and  the choice of graft governed by surgeon preference, patient preference and the state of prepuce.
 
Keywords
graft; inner prepuce; oral mucosa; proximal hypospadias; two stage
References
  1. Ferro F, Zaccara A, Spagnoli A, Lucchetti M, Capitanucci M, Villa M. Skin Graft for 2-stage Treatment of Severe Hypospadias: Back to the Future. The Journal of Urology. 2002;168:1730-33.
  2. Faure A, Bouty A, Nyo Y, O'Brien M, Heloury Y. Two-stage graft urethroplasty for proximal and complicated hypospadias in children: A retrospective study. Journal of Pediatric Urology. 2016; 12:286.e1-286.e7.
  3. Cruz-Diaz O, Castellan M, Gosalbez R. Use of Buccal Mucosa in Hypospadias Repair. Current Urology Reports. 2013; 14:366-72.
  4. Leslie B, Lorenzo A, Figueroa V, Moore K, Farhat W, Bägli D. Critical Outcome Analysis of Staged Buccal Mucosa Graft Urethroplasty for Prior Failed Hypospadias Repair in Children. The Journal of Urology. 2011; 185:1077-82.
  5. Bhat A, Bhat M, Sabharwal K, Singla M, Saran R, Gokhroo S et al. A Prospective Study to Evaluate the Role of Different Variables in Results of TIPU for Hypospadias[Internet].[updated on 31 May 2014; cited on 15 January 2017]. Available from: http://ibimapublishing.com/articles/UROL/2014/547185.
  6. Johal N, Nitkunan T, O'Malley K, Cuckow P. The Two-Stage Repair for Severe Primary Hypospadias. European Urology 2006; 50:366-71.
  7. Tehmeedullah, Khan AT, Obaidullah MA. Comparison of prepucial skin, postauricular skin and buccal mucosal graft results in hypospadias repair. Journal of College of Physicians and Surgeons of Pakistan 2003; 13:515-18.
  8. Snodgrass W, Bush N and Cost N. Algorithm for Comprehensive Approach to Hypospadias Reoperation Using 3 Techniques. The Journal of Urology 2009; 182:2885-92.
  9. Mokhless I, Kader M, Fahmy N, Youssef M. The Multistage Use of Buccal Mucosa Grafts for Complex Hypospadias: Histological Changes. The Journal of Urology 2007; 177:1496-500.
  10. Leslie B, Jesus L, El-Hout Y, Moore K, Farhat W, Bägli D. Comparative Histological and Functional Controlled Analysis of Tubularized Incised Plate Urethroplasty with and Without Dorsal Inlay Graft: A Preliminary Experimental Study in Rabbits. The Journal of Urology 2011; 186:1631-37.
  11. Snodgrass W. and Bush N. Hypospadias. In: Wein AJ, Kavoussi LR, Partin AW, Peters CA. Campbell –Walsh urology. 11th Volume 4. Elsevier philadelphia; 2016: 3399-3429.
  12. Snodgrass W., Cost N., Nakonezny PA, Bush N. Analysis of risk factors for glans dehiscence after tubularized incised plate hypospadias repair. J. Urol. 2011; 185:1845-49.
Statistics
Article View: 247
PDF Download: 113


Journal Management System. Powered by iJournalPro.com