Outcome of stented versus unstented mid-shaft to distal hypospadias repair

AIMS: We compared the outcomes of unstented repair (UR) versus stented repair (SR) in patients with mid-shaft to coronal hypospadias (HS) to elucidate if SR has any advantage over the UR. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively studied our mid-shaft to coronal HS repair patients between January 2013 and January 2018. We recorded variables such as degree of HS, age at repair, surgeon, type of repair, suture used, stent usage, and standard early and late complications. Relative risk (RR) was calculated and P < 0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: We included 120 patients (63 UR, 57 SR). There was no statistically significant difference in any parameters in both the groups. All had either tubularized incised plate or Thiersch–Duplay procedure. Urethroplasty was done with PDS 6/0 in all cases. Trainees performed two-third of the repairs under variable supervision. Early complications included one UR patient having urinary retention needing insertion of urethral catheter, five SR patients having bleeding/swelling, and three UR having dysuria. All were managed conservatively. For late complications, 98 patients were available (UR: 51, SR: 47) with fistula in 17 (17.3%), UR 8 (15.6%) versus SR 9 (19.1%) (P = 0.5, RR = 1.2) meatal stenosis in 3, UR 3 versus SR 0 (P = 0.06, RR = 6.4) and glanular dehiscence 6, UR 4 versus SR 2 (P = 0.25, RR = 1.8). CONCLUSION: There were no statistically significant differences in the short-term complications between UR and SR for HS. In the long term, RR for meatal stenosis is higher in UR.