Are there anatomical limiting factors to foreskin reconstruction at the time of single-stage hypospadias repair?

Abstract

Foreskin reconstruction (FR) at the time of primary hypospadias repair is a truly anatomically complete reconstruction of the hypospadic penis. We prospectively collected penile and preputial measurement of children undergoing single-stage hypospadias repair and FR with the aim to identify possible relations between penile and preputial anatomy and the likelihood to develop complications. We prospectively studied children who underwent single stage hypospadias repair associated with FR from 2016 to 2019. We recorded intra-operative foreskin and penile measurements and post-operative outcomes. Logistic Regression analysis was performed to explore independent factors affecting urethroplasty and skin complications. Chi square test was used to compare outcomes in different groups based on ventral foreskin defect (VFD) width, Glans size, age at surgery and meatal location. From a total of 181 consecutive patients, 86 boys who underwent a single stage hypospadias repair combined with FR were included in the study. Patients were excluded because they were either lost at follow up (n=10), required a 2-stage repair (n=2), were circumcised at birth (n=3) or parents requested a circumcision (n=78); in 2 patients, a decision to perform circumcision was made intraoperatively due to aesthetic reasons (monk-hood deformity of the prepuce). Median age at surgery was 17 months. Mean glans width was 14.4mm. Mean unstretched and stretched foreskin circumference were 29.5mm and 40.9mm, respectively. Mean VFD (the distance between the proximal insertion of the foreskin hood on either side of the midline at the level of the coronal sulcus) was 7.2mm (Fig.1). At median follow-up of 8 months (6-23), 9 complications were recorded (10.4%): foreskin dehiscence occurred in 1% (1/86), a foreskin fistula was noted in 4.6% (4/86), tight, non-retractile, foreskin in 1% (1/86); urethrocutaneous fistula in 2.3% (2/86) and complete dehiscence of the glans and foreskin in 1 (1.2%). Multiple logistic regression analysis demonstrated that none of the measurements obtained was an independent risk factor for developing urethroplasty or skin complications. There was no significant difference in complications between wide VFD (>7mm) vs. narrow VFD (≤7mm), large glans (>14mm) vs. small glans (≤14mm), age at surgery ≤24 months vs.>24 month and meatal location distal (glanular, coronal, subcoronal and distal penile) vs. proximal (midpenile, proximal penile and penoscrotal). To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study reporting a prospective and objective assessment of the foreskin in the context of single stage hypospadias repair. Individual anatomical differences in preputial and penile anatomy do not seem to affect the likelihood of skin and urethroplasty complications. FR can, therefore, be offered to all boys undergoing primary single stage hypospadias repair . Further studies on larger numbers and external validation of these measurements is necessary.