Volume 10, Issue 3 (7-2021)                   WJPS 2021, 10(3): 73-77 | Back to browse issues page

XML Print

Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Askarpour S, Peyvasteh M, Mohamadi A, Khoshkhabar M. Comparative Study of Modifying Meatal Advancement Glandular with Release Chordi versus Snodgrass Surgical Methods Regarding the Repair of Distal Hypospadias. WJPS. 2021; 10 (3) :73-77
URL: http://wjps.ir/article-1-848-en.html
Department of Surgery, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran
Abstract:   (285 Views)
Hypospadias is one of the most common congenital anomalies of the external genitalia of boys. No single technique can be recommended for the repair of hypospadias in its various forms. We aimed to compare modify meatal advancement glandular with release chordi versus Snodgrass surgical methods in the repair of distal hypospadias.
In this study, conducted from Apr 2018 to the end of Sep 2020, all boys who underwent one of the two methods of Snodgrass and modify meatal advancement glanuplasty with release chordi in Imam Khomeini and Abuzar Hospitals of Ahvaz, Southern Iran, were enrolled.
Forty-five patients underwent Snodgrass (group S) and 55 patients underwent modified meatal advancement glandular with release chordi (group M). The mean age of patients and duration of surgical wound healing in the two groups did not differ significantly. There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of complications, including Bleeding, Hematoma, Meatus stricture, Wound infection, detachment of the wound edge, chordi after surgery, Balanitis and Urethral stricture but the incidence of fistula in patients undergoing Snodgrass repair was significantly higher than the group modify meatal advancement glandular with release chordi (P<0.05).
The method of modify meatal advancement glandular with release chordi compared to Snodgrass method is associated with fewer complications due to surgery, although further studies are recommended.
Full-Text [PDF 337 kb]   (112 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Original Article | Subject: Special
Received: 2021/10/10 | Accepted: 2021/07/6 | Published: 2021/10/23

1. van der Zanden LF, van Rooij IA, Feitz WF, Franke B, Knoers NV, Roeleveld N. Aetiology of hypospadias: a systematic review of genes and environment. Hum Reprod Update 2012 May-Jun;18(3):260-83. [DOI:10.1093/humupd/dms002]
2. Springer A, Van Den Heijkant M, Baumann S. Worldwide prevalence of hypospadias. J Pediatr Urol 2016;12(3):152. e1-. e7. [DOI:10.1016/j.jpurol.2015.12.002]
3. Baskin LS. Hypospadias and urethral development. J Urol 2000 Mar;163(3):951-6. [DOI:10.1016/S0022-5347(05)67861-5]
4. Rübben I, Stein R. [Hypospadias : Insights and challenges]. Urologe A 2017 Oct;56(10):1256-65. [DOI:10.1007/s00120-017-0498-x]
5. Alngaar Y, Alshahat O, Zayid T. A comparative study between Snodgrass and urethral advancement methods in the repair of distal penile Hypospadias. Al-Azhar International Medical Journal 2020. [DOI:10.21608/aimj.2020.69582]
6. Bhat A, Mandal AK. Acute postoperative complications of hypospadias repair. Indian J Urol 2008;24(2):241. [DOI:10.4103/0970-1591.40622]
7. Snodgrass W, Bush N. Primary hypospadias repair techniques: A review of the evidence. Urol Ann 2016 Oct-Dec;8(4):403-8. [DOI:10.4103/0974-7796.192097]
8. Duckett JW, Snyder III HM. Meatal advancement and glanuloplasty hypospadias repair after 1,000 cases: avoidance of meatal stenosis and regression. J Urol 1992;147(3):665-9. [DOI:10.1016/S0022-5347(17)37341-X]
9. Taneli C, Genç A, Günsar C, et al. Modification of meatal advancement and glanuloplasty for correction of distal hypospadias. Scand J Urol Nephrol 2004;38(2):122-4. [DOI:10.1080/00365590310020042]
10. Keays MA, Dave S. Current hypospadias management: Diagnosis, surgical management, and long-term patient-centred outcomes. Canadian Urological Association Journal 2017;11(1-2Suppl1):S48. [DOI:10.5489/cuaj.4386]
11. Hasoon MA. Comparative Study in Anterior Distal Hypospadias Reconstruction Utilizing Different Techniques (Mathieu and Snodgrass): Outcome, Complications and Failure Rate. IOSR J Pharm 2013;3:53-9. [DOI:10.9790/3013-0343053-59]
12. Springer A, Krois W, Horcher E. Trends in hypospadias surgery: results of a worldwide survey. Europ Urol 2011;60(6):1184-9. [DOI:10.1016/j.eururo.2011.08.031]
13. Holland A, Abubacker M, Smith G, Cass D. Management of urethrocutaneous fistula following hypospadias repair. Pediatr Surg Int 2008;24(9):1047. [DOI:10.1007/s00383-008-2202-0]
14. Zhou Y, Lu J, Takahashi G. Snodgrass procedure for primary hypospadias repair. Int J Urol 2002;9(4):215-8. [DOI:10.1046/j.1442-2042.2002.00455.x]
15. Shukla AK, Singh AP, Sharma P, Shukla J. MAGPI technique for distal penile hypospadias; modifications to improve outcome at a single center. Arch Int Surg 2016;6(4):201. [DOI:10.4103/ais.ais_37_16]
16. Moradi M, Moradi Aa, Ghaderpanah F. Comparison of Snodgrass and Mathieu surgical techniques in anterior distal shaft hypospadias repair. Urol J 2005; 2(1):28-31.

Add your comments about this article : Your username or Email:

Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

© 2021 CC BY-NC 4.0 | World Journal of Plastic Surgery

Designed & Developed by : Yektaweb