Surgical and functional outcomes of Dorsal Inlay Graft urethroplasty in revision vs primary hypospadias repair in the pediatric age

Introduction

Over the years, Dorsal Inlay Graft (DIG) urethroplasty has gained worldwide acceptance for primary hypospadias repair. However, its safety and effectiveness for revision surgery are yet to be proven.

Objective

The aim of the study is to assess and compare complication rates and functional outcomes of DIG surgery in revision versus primary hypospadias repair.

Material and methods

We carried out a retrospective analysis of data collected from 53 consecutive DIG urethroplasties performed by a single surgeon at our institution. Patients were stratified in two groups – primary repair and redo-urethroplasty. For each group, we recorded standard pre-operative characteristics, surgical technicalities, complication rates and uroflowmetry parameters.

Results

Out of 53 DIG urethroplasties, 21 (39.6 %) where primary and 32 (60.4 %) were re-do. As expected, the two groups differed for median age at surgery: 20 months for primary and 68.5 months for revision surgery (p < 0.001). Additionally, all 21 (100 %) primary interventions were performed with a preputial graft, whereas among revision DIG urethroplasties only 2 (6.3 %) where preputial and 30 (93.8 %) were buccal (p < 0.001). Catheterization time (7 vs 8 days, p = 0.155) and postoperative complication rates (14.3 % vs 9.4 %, p = 0.581) were comparable between the primary and revision surgery group, respectively (all p > .05). Forty-two of the 53 patients underwent uroflowmetry during follow-up. Of these, 19 (63 %) patients presented with abnormal uroflowmetry and 11 (37 %) had equivocal parameters with no difference between the two groups.

Discussion

Dorsal Inlay Graft urethroplasty has long been known to be safe and effective for primary hypospadias repair. On the other hand, data on dorsal inlay graft urethroplasty as a salvage surgery after primary hypospadias repair failure is scarce. Surprisingly, according to our findings, surgical outcomes and complication rates are comparable between primary and revision hypospadias cases. Additionally, our results in the redo group are absolutely encouraging if compared to those reported in the literature for the same subset of patients.

Conclusions

According to our findings, DIG urethroplasty is a safe and effective option to treat revision hypospadias repair.