Evaluation of tunica vaginalis flap-covering combined with modified Glenn–Anderson in one-stage repair of proximal hypospadias with incomplete penoscrotal transposition

OBJECTIVE: To explore a novel repair method for proximal hypospadias with incomplete penoscrotal transposition in children and evaluate its safety and outcomes. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of clinical data was conducted for 86 children with severe proximal hypospadias with incomplete penoscrotal transposition who were hospitalized in our department between June 2018 and February 2021. In total, 42 patients (Group A) underwent repair following a one-stage method in which tunica vaginalis flap-covering was combined with a modified Glenn–Anderson procedure, while 44 patients (Group B) underwent a two-step repair consisting of tunica vaginalis flap-covering using the Duplay technique and the modified Glenn–Anderson procedure. The two groups were compared on operation time, length of postoperative hospital stay, postoperative complications, and associated costs. RESULTS: All operations were successful in both groups. No statistical difference was observed between the two groups in incidence of stenosis of the urinary meatus (2.38% vs. 4.54%, P = 0.279), urethral stricture (2.38% vs. 2.27%, P = 0.948), urinary fistula (7.14% vs. 6.82%, P = 0.907), or urinary infection (7.14% vs. 4.55%, P = 0.309). Additionally, there was no statistical difference between the groups in operation time (63.21 ± 5.20 vs. 62.07 ± 4.47 min, P = 0.059), postoperative off-bed time (7.02 ± 1.32 vs. 6.84 ± 1.20 days, P = 0.456), or duration of hospitalization (10.55 ± 1.15 vs. 10.15 ± 1.45 days, P = 0.092). However, Group B patients underwent an additional second-stage operation, incurring extra costs. Three months after surgery, Group A were judged more positively on the PPPS (specifically receiving higher scores on shaft skin and general appearance) by both the parents (shaft skin: 2.10 ± 0.82 vs. 1.93 ± 0.62, P = 0.024; general appearance: 2.16 ± 0.91 vs. 1.93 ± 0.72, P = 0.042) and the surgeon (shaft skin: 2.42 ± 0.70 vs. 2.25 ± 0.58, P = 0.025; general appearance: 2.38 ± 0.69 vs. 2.29 ± 0.51, P = 0.041). In most cases, the parents and surgeon were satisfied with the appearance of the genitals after one-stage repair. CONCLUSION: The advantages of the novel repair technique include use of a single-stage operation, producing a better appearance at a lower cost. The tunica vaginalis flap-covering method is not only demonstrated to be safe and effective, but it is also a simpler method than the conventional operation.