Meta-analysis comparing the outcomes of single stage (foreskin pedicled tube) versus two stage (foreskin free graft & foreskin pedicled flap) repair for proximal hypospadias in the last decade.

BACKGROUND

Despite many technical advances the debate continues on single versus staged procedures for proximal hypospadias. In this systematic review and meta-analysis we have compared the contemporary outcomes of proximal hypospadias repair: single stage foreskin pedicle tube (FPT) versus two stage foreskin free graft (FFG) and two-stage foreskin pedicled flap (FPF) over the last decade.

METHODS

A systematic literature review of publications in English of the following electronic databases was conducted: Cochrane Database, PUBMED, MEDLINE and EMBASE. The following keywords were used: (proximal) AND (hypospadias) AND (repair OR urethroplasty) AND (outcomes OR complications). The publication date range for studies was from January 2010 to December 2020. Outcomes analyzed were complications like urethro-cutaneous fistula (UCF), glans dehiscence (GD), meatal stenosis (MS), urethral stricture (US), urethral diverticulum (UD), recurrent curvature or residual chordee (RC), buried penis (BP) and poor cosmesis (PC) as per objective assessment scores, or poor graft uptake (PGF) during first stage. We also divided the papers based on case load into two groups: < 5 cases or >5 cases operated per year and compared the post-operative outcomes.

RESULTS

The I 2 statistics for prevalence of total complications showed high heterogeneity with I 2 of 88% for one stage repair and 92% & 98% for two stage repairs. The pooled data from 26 articles covered a total of 2664 patients; mean follow-up of 4.5 years (1.8-14 years). One stage repair (FPT) was used in 680 (25%) patients while two stage repair was used in 1984 (75%) patients. Complications were encountered in 285/680 (42%) of those who underwent single stage repair (FPT) and this was significantly higher (Fishers; p = 0.001) than 414/1984 (21%) complication rate seen in two stage repair. Among the two different techniques of two stage operations over-all complication rate was not significantly different (Fisher's; p = 0.1) between FFG (155/674; 23%) and FPF (259/1310; 20%). FFG was superior to FPF in terms of individual complications UCF, MS, GD and UD. For two-stage FPT and FPF repairs the complication rate significantly reduced (p = 0.01) with increasing case load. For single stage repairs the complication rate remained high despite the increasing case load.

CONCLUSIONS

Two-stage repair of proximal hypospadias had significantly less complications compared to single stage repair. Among two-stage repairs specific complications were significantly less for FFG, although total complications were not significantly different from that seen with FPF. The results of two-stage repairs improved with higher case load supporting the concept of dedicated hypospadias centres.