@article{TAU5287,
author = {Shawn Dason and Nathan Wong and Luis H. Braga},
title = {The contemporary role of 1 vs. 2-stage repair for proximal hypospadias},
journal = {Translational Andrology and Urology},
volume = {3},
number = {4},
year = {2014},
keywords = {},
abstract = {This review discusses the most commonly employed techniques in the repair of proximal hypospadias, highlighting the advantages and disadvantages of single versus staged surgical techniques. Hypospadias can have a spectrum of severity with a urethral meatus ranging from the perineum to the glans. Associated abnormalities are commonly found with proximal hypospadias and encompass a large spectrum, including ventral curvature (VC) up to 50 degrees or more, ventral skin deficiency, a flattened glans, penile torsion and penoscrotal transposition. Our contemporary understanding of hypospadiology is comprised of a foundation built by experts who have described a number of techniques and their outcomes, combined with survey data detailing practice patterns. The two largest components of hypospadias repair include repair of VC and urethroplasty. VC greater than 20 degrees is considered clinically relevant to warrant surgical correction. To repair VC, the penis is first degloved—a procedure that may reduce or remove curvature by itself in some cases. Residual curvature is then repaired with dorsal plication techniques, transection of the urethral plate, and/or ventral lengthening techniques. Urethroplasty takes the form of 1- or 2-stage repairs. One-stage options include the tubularized incised urethroplasty (TIP) or various graft or flap-based techniques. Two-stage options also include grafts or flaps, including oral mucosal and preputial skin grafting. One stage repairs are an attractive option in that they may reduce cost, hospital stay, anesthetic risks, and time to the final result. The downside is that these repairs require mastery of multiple techniques may be more complex, and—depending on technique—have higher complication rates. Two-stage repairs are preferred by the majority of surveyed hypospadiologists. The 2-stage repair is versatile and has satisfactory outcomes, but necessitates a second procedure. Given the lack of clear high-quality evidence supporting the superiority of one approach over the others, hypospadiologists should develop their own algorithm, which gives them the best outcomes.},
issn = {2223-4691}, url = {https://tau.amegroups.org/article/view/5287}
}