You have accessJournal of UrologyPediatrics: Congenital Anomalies - Lower Urinary Tract & Genitalia1 Apr 2010528 THE UTILITY OF UROFLOWMETRY IN THE LONG-TERM FOLLOW UP OF DISTAL HYPOSPADIAS REPAIR Richard Ashley, Ahmed BaniHani, Julia Barthold, and T. Ernesto Figueroa Richard AshleyRichard Ashley More articles by this author , Ahmed BaniHaniAhmed BaniHani More articles by this author , Julia BartholdJulia Barthold More articles by this author , and T. Ernesto FigueroaT. Ernesto Figueroa More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2010.02.727AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES Uroflowmetry has been utilized as an objective measure of successful distal hypospadias repair. However, no guidelines exist for how to use uroflow data in order to identify those patients who need repeat intervention. We sought to determine if this test could be used as a predictive tool for which patients would require a repeat operation. METHODS A retrospective chart review was conducted to identify patients with at least 36 months of follow-up after distal hypospadias repair. Additional inclusion criteria included successful potty-training and one complete uroflow study with post-void residual. Uroflow parameters for each child were compared to the previously published Miskolc nomograms. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to determine factors associated with the need for repeat intervention with p<0.05 considered significant RESULTS A total of 329 patients underwent distal hypospadias repair from 2000-2006. 107 patients met inclusion criteria for the study and had median follow-up of 63 months (range 36-146mo). The median age at surgery was 7mo (range 3-149mo) and median age at post-operative uroflow was 5.7y (range 3-17yr). Several hypospadias repair techniques were utilized: tubular incised plate (TIP, 12/107, 11%), Theirsh-Duplay (TD, 44/107, 41%), Mathieu (Ma, 31/107, 29%), sleeve advancement (SA, 11/107, 10%), MAGPI (M, 9/107, 8%). When the entire cohort was analyzed and the Qmax was compared to the published norms on the Miskolc nomograms, 38% (41/107) of the patients had Qmax below the 5th percentile. However, only 13% (14/107) of the cohort had elevated post void residual (PVR, >10% of the voided volume). A total of 26% (28/107) of the cohort required repeat intraoperative intervention and assessment. Multiple preoperative factors and postoperative parameters were analyzed to determine if they predicted need for repeat intervention. No urodynamic parameter (Qmax, voided volume, PVR, or shape of uroflow curve) could successfully predict the need for repeat urethral intervention after multivariate analysis. However, the presence of symptoms at follow-up (dysuria, stranguria, etc.) and the subjective assessment of a stenotic meatus successfully predicted the need for repeat intervention (OR = 6 and OR = 7, both p<0.001, respectively) CONCLUSIONS Uroflow parameters did not assist in determining which patients required repeat intervention. History and physical exam findings were more important in identifying patients who required intraoperative assessment and possible intervention Wilmington, DE© 2010 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 183Issue 4SApril 2010Page: e208-e209 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2010 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Richard Ashley More articles by this author Ahmed BaniHani More articles by this author Julia Barthold More articles by this author T. Ernesto Figueroa More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF DownloadLoading ...
Read full abstract