Adults with previous hypospadias surgery during childhood: Beware of bulbar strictures

Published:November 11, 2021DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpurol.2021.11.001

      Summary

      Background

      Urethral strictures represent the most frequent long-term complication in men after history of hypospadias surgery.

      Objectives

      To better define the spectrum of men previously treated for hypospadias during childhood, presenting at an adult urology clinic with persistent urethral complications.

      Study design

      Retrospective review of the records of 42 consecutive adult patients with a personal history of hypospadias repair during childhood referred at one adult tertiary urology center between 2004 and 2017. Those with persistent urethral strictures were included: 28 patients (median age 28yr [17–81]). Residual chordee, aesthetic concerns, isolated fistulas, and motives of consultation unrelated to hypospadias were excluded. Early initial success rate and location of urethral stricture were studied. Statistical Analysis was done by non-parametric tests.

      Results

      On the 42 consecutive adults eligible, a total of 28 patients had a persistent urethral stricture. During childhood, 13/28 boys had required multiple surgical revision procedures, including six of them for postoperative urethral strictures. During adulthood, initial urethral assessment revealed 29 urethral strictures in 28 patients (penile urethra 23/29, bulbar urethra 8/29). The early initial success rate of stricture treatment was 50% (median follow-up: 4 years [1–7]). Additional surgical procedures were needed and performed in 11 patients. Eight patients were eventually diagnosed with a bulbar stricture, either isolated (n = 5) or combined with a distal stricture (n = 3), without significant relationship with initial position of meatus.

      Discussion

      Predictive factors for bulbar strictures locations could not be identified. It was however observed that symptomatic bulbar strictures do exist in adults, in the long term after penile hypospadias repair during childhood, independently of the initial site of hypospadias, initial success of primary repair, and the type of surgical reconstructions performed during childhood.

      Conclusion

      Summary TableCharacteristics of patients according to stricture location.
      DISTAL Stricture only BULBAR Stricture p=
      n= 20 8
      Initial position of meatus
       Anterior 10 6 0.48
       Penile 8 2 0,94
       Posterior 2 0 0,7
      Hypospadias first repair
       MAGPI 0 1 0,57
       TIP 7 2 0,77
       Mathieu 5 2 1
       Onlay 0 1 1
       Duckett 6 2 1
       Cecil-Leveuf 2 0 0,98
      Late initial surgery (>3 years) 4 0 0,38
      Staged primary surgery 3 0 0,7
      Childhood complications after initial surgery
       None 13 4 0,26
       Stenosis 3 3 0,32
       Fistula 4 0 0,28
       Dehiscence 1 1 1
      Other interventions during childhood
       None 9 2 0,61
       Non-urethral redo-surgery 3 1 1
       Redo-urethroplasty and multiple surgeries 8 5 0,46
      MAGPI: Meatal Advancement and GlanuloPlasty Intervention.
      TIP: Tubularized Incised Plate.

      Keywords

      Abbreviations:

      BMG (Buccal Mucosa Graft), GA (General Anesthesia), TIP (Tubularized Incised Plate), UTI (Urinary Tract Infection)
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic and Personal
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Journal of Pediatric Urology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Manzoni G.
        • Bracka A.
        • Palminteri E.
        • Marrocco G.
        Hypospadias surgery: when, what and by whom?: hypospadias surgery.
        BJU Int. 2004; 94: 1188-1195https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1464-410x.2004.05128.x
        • Snodgrass W.T.
        Assessing outcomes of hypospadias surgery.
        J Urol. 2005; 174: 816-817https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ju.0000175046.69696.5b
        • Barbagli G.
        • De Angelis M.
        • Palminteri E.
        • Lazzeri M.
        Failed hypospadias repair presenting in adults.
        Eur Urol. 2006; 49: 887-895https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2006.01.027
        • Barbagli G.
        • Perovic S.
        • Djinovic R.
        • Sansalone S.
        • Lazzeri M.
        Retrospective descriptive analysis of 1,176 patients with failed hypospadias repair.
        J Urol. 2010; 183: 207-211https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2009.08.153
        • Myers J.B.
        • McAninch J.W.
        • Erickson B.A.
        • Breyer B.N.
        Treatment of adults with complications from previous hypospadias surgery.
        J Urol. 2012; 188: 459-463https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2012.04.007
        • Tritschler S.
        • Roosen A.
        • Füllhase C.
        • Stief C.G.
        • Rübben H.
        Urethral stricture.
        Dtsch Aerztebl. 2013; (Online)https://doi.org/10.3238/arztebl.2013.0220
        • Pippi Salle J.L.
        • Sayed S.
        • Salle A.
        • Bagli D.
        • Farhat W.
        • Koyle M.
        • et al.
        Proximal hypospadias: a persistent challenge. Single institution outcome analysis of three surgical techniques over a 10-year period.
        J Pediatr Urol. 2016; 12: 28.e1-28.e7https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpurol.2015.06.011
        • Snodgrass W.
        • Macedo A.
        • Hoebeke P.
        • Mouriquand P.D.E.
        Hypospadias dilemmas: a round table.
        J Pediatr Urol. 2011; 7: 145-157https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpurol.2010.11.009
        • Talab S.S.
        • Cambareri G.M.
        • Hanna M.K.
        Outcome of surgical management of urethral stricture following hypospadias repair.
        J Pediatr Urol. 2019; 15: 354.e1-354.e6https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpurol.2019.05.025
        • Ching C.B.
        • Wood H.M.
        • Ross J.H.
        • Gao T.
        • Angermeier K.W.
        The Cleveland Clinic experience with adult hypospadias patients undergoing repair: their presentation and a new classification system: cleveland clinic experience hypospadias patients.
        BJU Int. 2011; 107: 1142-1146https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2010.09693.x
        • Howe A.S.
        • Hanna M.K.
        Management of 220 adolescents and adults with complications of hypospadias repair during childhood.
        Asian J Urol. 2017; 4: 14-17https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajur.2016.09.010
        • Rynja S.P.
        • de Jong T.P.V.M.
        • Bosch J.L.H.R.
        • de Kort L.M.O.
        Functional, cosmetic and psychosexual results in adult men who underwent hypospadias correction in childhood.
        J Pediatr Urol. 2011; 7: 504-515https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpurol.2011.02.008
        • Spinoit A.-F.
        • Waterschoot M.
        • Sinatti C.
        • Abbas T.
        • Callens N.
        • Cools M.
        • et al.
        Fertility and sexuality issues in congenital lifelong urology patients: male aspects.
        World J Urol. 2021; 39: 1013-1019https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-020-03121-2
        • Saavedra A.A.
        • Rourke K.F.
        Characterization and outcomes of urethroplasty for hypospadias-associated urethral strictures in adults.
        Can Urol Assoc J. 2019; 13https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.5863
        • Zumstein V.
        • Dahlem R.
        • Kluth L.A.
        • Rosenbaum C.M.
        • Maurer V.
        • Bahassan O.
        • et al.
        A critical outcome analysis of Asopa single-stage dorsal inlay substitution urethroplasty for penile urethral stricture.
        World J Urol. 2019; https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-019-02871-y
        • Lumen N.
        • Hoebeke P.
        • Willemsen P.
        • De Troyer B.
        • Pieters R.
        • Oosterlinck W.
        Etiology of urethral stricture Disease in the 21st century.
        J Urol. 2009; 182: 983-987https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2009.05.023
        • Cotter K.J.
        • Hahn A.E.
        • Voelzke B.B.
        • Myers J.B.
        • Smith T.G.
        • Elliott S.P.
        • et al.
        Trends in urethral stricture Disease etiology and urethroplasty technique from a multi-institutional surgical outcomes research group.
        Urology. 2019; 130: 167-174https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2019.01.046
        • Barbagli G.
        • Fossati N.
        • Larcher A.
        • Montorsi F.
        • Sansalone S.
        • Butnaru D.
        • et al.
        Correlation between primary hypospadias repair and subsequent urethral strictures in a series of 408 adult patients.
        Eur Urol Focus. 2017; 3: 287-292https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2017.02.005
        • Hoy N.Y.
        • Rourke K.F.
        Better defining the spectrum of adult hypospadias: examining the effect of childhood surgery on adult presentation.
        Urology. 2017; 99: 281-286https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2016.07.057
        • Wu M.
        • Chen F.
        • Xie H.
        • Lv Y.
        • Huang Y.
        • Liu Y.
        • et al.
        Management of failed hypospadias: choosing the right method and achieving optimal results.
        Int Urol Nephrol. 2018; 50: 1795-1800https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-018-1962-2
        • Craig J.R.
        • Wallis C.
        • Brant W.O.
        • Hotaling J.M.
        • Myers J.B.
        Management of adults with prior failed hypospadias surgery.
        Transl Androl Urol. 2014; 3: 9
        • Fichtner J.
        • Filipas D.
        • Fisch M.
        • Hohenfellner R.
        • Thüroff J.W.
        Long-term followup of buccal mucosa onlay graft for hypospadias repair: analysis of complications.
        J Urol. 2004; 172: 1970-1972https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ju.0000142451.78966.fb
        • Meeks J.J.
        • Erickson B.A.
        • Gonzalez C.M.
        Staged reconstruction of long segment urethral strictures in men with previous pediatric hypospadias repair.
        J Urol. 2009; 181: 685-689https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2008.10.013
        • Vassar M.
        • Matthew H.
        The retrospective chart review: important methodological considerations.
        J Educ Eval Health Prof. 2013; 10: 12https://doi.org/10.3352/jeehp.2013.10.12